Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 9

"Wikipedia:TERRORIST" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TERRORIST. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

In-text attribution
I'm not sure that Manual of Style/Words to watch provides a clear enough description of when to use WP:INTEXT attribution. It says that certain labels are "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution", but "widely used" labels/terms/claims are what we normally don't use in-text attribution for.

On the other hand, if people aren't getting screwed up here, maybe I'm worrying for no good reason. It's okay to just tell me that, if you think this wording is working in practice. (Also, I'm pinging User:SlimVirgin, because I always think that she is one of our best when it comes to in-text attribution.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Back in 2015, I attempted to change "in which case use in-text attribution" to "In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option." As noted in my edit summary, I did this because "in-text attribution is clear that it might give WP:Undue weight. If the term is widely accepted among sources, it can be very misleading to attribute that term to one source." I was then reverted by PBS, who went on to voice disagreement with the change. This is seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 6. Sunrise also weighed in. In that discussion, there was also disagreement about WP:LABEL stating "and are best avoided" instead of "and may be best avoided." I supported "and are best avoided." SMcCandlish weighed in on that. I mentioned that I would continue discussion of my concern about "in which case use in-text attribution" at a later date, but I never did (although I have been planning to bring it up again at some point).


 * How do I feel now? Well, it's still the case that WP:INTEXT can be misleading when in-text attribution is used for something that should simply be stated in Wikipedia's voice because it's a consensus matter in the literature. But these days, I have seen a number of editors trying to take the "widely used" aspect of WP:LABEL to mean that Wikipedia should also definitely call someone or something a contentious name in its own voice, including when it's only or mainly opinion pieces calling that someone or something that contentious name. And it's despite the fact that the WP:LABEL says "in which case use in-text attribution." The "in which case use in-text attribution" aspect has helped somewhat in these cases, however. And I've seen editors use it loosely, to, for example, state "are considered by feminists [to be so and so]" rather than attribute the matter to just one person or a few people. And that helps the concern I have about misusing WP:INTEXT. But it's certainly still being misused to attribute a widely accepted matter to just one person or a few people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the ping and the kind words. I would use in-text attribution in the examples offered on that page, depending on how I was writing the sentence. In "X is widely regarded as a cult", I would added citations to mainstream sources that used the term. In "X is a cult", I would say "according to professor Y". But even with "widely regarded as", editors sympathetic to that group would probably insist we find a source saying "widely regarded as" and use in-text attribution there too. I like in-text attribution: it distances Wikipedia, helps the reader decide whether to trust the information, and gives credit to the original author. We should of course be careful not to imply there's disagreement where there's very little or none: "2 + 2 = 4, according to X". There will always be cases on the edge of widespread consensus; in those cases, I favour some form of in-text attribution. SarahSV (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you all think about changing it slightly, perhaps like this?


 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You started by worrying whether the wording "provides a clear enough description", but you propose something which is less clear -- instead of saying use it, saying maybe use it. I believe the current wording is more in keeping with the WP:BLP requirement that contentious statements must be well sourced, and if more than one person is name-calling then the wording does not preclude saying "A and B and C said X is a nogoodnik.[1][1][3]" Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we could sustain that in all cases, though. Imagine "A and B and C and D and E and F and G and H and I and J and K and L and M and N (and a lot of other people, but we're getting tired) said X is a nogoodnik.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]".  Terrorist is in the list here.  Try applying "Thou Must Always Use In-text Attribution" to a statement like "ISIL is a terrorist group".  This is a widely held POV.  That exact quoted phrase gives me 16,000 ghits.  It appears in more than a thousand news articles and a dozen books.  Do you think we should provide a list of all the people who make that claim?   That is what the current text says:  don't call them a terrorist group unless that's a widely used term, and when it is (very) widely used, then include a list of the people who use that term, even if, realistically, you can't put hundreds of names into the list, and putting in only a tiny fraction of them could mislead people into thinking that the view is not widely held.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no part of the current wording that says or implies the in-text citations must be exhaustive. Still, if there are cases where in-text attribution is unnecessary, how do we make that distinction? Your proposed wording isn't providing clarity on the matter. — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that saying that you might need to use in-text attribution and you might not is more accurate than saying it should always be used. If you need to figure out whether in-text attribution would be appropriate, then it's linked.
 * Can you think of a better way to communicate this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version suggests that certain terms can never be used without attribution, which is incorrect as a matter of core policy, so I would agree with this change. If (for example) every RS we have refers to ISIL as a terrorist group, then using attribution is a violation of WP:ASSERT: the sources demonstrate that the contentious term does not in fact qualify as contentious in this circumstance, and acting otherwise would be a breach of neutrality. Certainly there are some terms for which we'd expect that such an agreement among the sources would never happen, but if it did then we would be expected to follow it, as a matter of WP:V - we would either use wikivoice, or in some cases a construction like "widely regarded as" would also be appropriate. This is the same reason that pseudosciences can be described as such, the reason the Holocaust can be described as racist, and so on. To counter the issue of inappropriate non-attribution, I would also support versions with an additional clarification along the lines of "if there (are/are not) substantial differences of opinion among the sources", since that is the ultimate threshold for making this sort of decision. Sunrise (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think this wording is working in practice. I think any change to the wording is unnecessary, and could lead to more problems than it solves, per Flyer22 Reborn's recent comment, SlimVirgin, Peter Gulutzan, and Aeusoes1. Like Flyer22 Reborn, I have seen some editors try to put contentious labels in Wikivoice based on cherry-picked opinion pieces.
 * In-text attribution can be very broad. With the example of ISIL, it is noteworthy that it uses attribution when describing it as terrorist, saying, The group has been designated a terrorist organisation by the United Nations as well as many international organisations and individual countries. This wording is powerful; I think much more powerful than simply stating "ISIL is a terrorist group". -Crossroads- (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think the OP is misparsing the material, and that the suggested rule revision actually creates a loophole. The original says, in summary:
 * Avoid by default.
 * Maybe use, if frequent in RS.
 * If used, attribute.
 * The revised proposal boils down to the same thing except – crucially – the final point becomes "If used, maybe attribute", which is completely meaningless noise as a . It fails to guide, and just throws up its hands. It means, between the lines, 'do whatever the hell you feel like'. Basically, the OP has sort of missed the forest for the trees, seeming to focus on local phrasal interactions without looking at the big picture of the entire passage. That picture is that subjective labels frequently interpreted as judgemental should be attributed even if they're common or even dominant in the RS. In practice, they often don't need to be attributed in the lead as long as the material explores the matter in depth in the main text of the article.  But it will vary on a case-by-case basis; an article's talk page becoming a hotbed of labeling-related dispute is generally an indicator that attribution is needed immediately even in a lead that is pushing length/detail limits already.  As the ISIL article shows,  doesn't mean 'just cite one single source as if it's the be-all and end-all on the matter'.  Nor does it mean 'stack up a citation-overkill bludgeon of 10 op-ed pieces'. It means provide some (i.e., multiple but not excessive) highly influential, reliable, strong-reputation sources generally interpreted as balanced rather than as advocates. Three is probably a good rule of thumb. And if not all RS that fit that description agree, then use part of the article body to lay out the conflict. This really isn't any different from any other topical issue on WP. The job of the project is to give readers a digest of everything encyclopedic about a topic, including a summary of noteworthy real-world controversies surrounding it and even meta-controversies about how that subject is publicly analyzed.


 * Actually, at the time of the above comments ISIL's page had only just been changed, when before it was described as ...a Salafi jihadist terrorist organization... in the first sentence. Taken literally, the current wording on this page forbids that, and it’s only possible because editors have, correctly, been ignoring the incorrect phrasing in favor of core policy. (I have reverted the edit at the ISIL page that made the change.) However, it’s not an either-or situation, as the specific details can also be included, which leads to a stronger statement than either one of them alone. Additionally, ISIL is merely one of many examples: the last time this came up the example I used was Boston Massacre, where the issues are exactly the same and the article has been stable since 2006.
 * I also want to re-emphasize the last part of my previous comment, as nobody says you should do what you feel like, and if people are trying to ASSERT opinion statements in Wikivoice using op-eds alone, then they are simply wrong (or at least not using the correct sources to back up their points). You should follow the usual approach, which is that you use attribution if there is a substantial difference of opinion among the reliable sources, and otherwise not. As I said, I would be fine with a full clarification of this in the text. Sunrise (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Synonym of said
Is "argued" an unbiased alternative to said? RockingGeo (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Argued" is fine when it's an argument. It's used in countless Wikipedia articles without an issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure I agree with your recent edit []. I think it is likely mostly OK but we should probably discuss things and get input just in case.  "Argued" is a word that I find somewhat hard to deal with and I think about this on the talk page discussions quite a bit.  Consider these examples, " and I argued about the merits of 1860s classical music.", "Rita and her husband argued last night.",  "I've put forth my arguments in favor of our business plan".  The last I think suggests a lists of pros/cons etc to explain why the business plan is a good idea.  In this context the word is a noun and, in my POV, carries no baggage.  In the second case the word congers up a verbal fight between a couple.  In the first case it isn't clear if Flyer22 and I were heated in our disagreement or if we were simply pontificating from opposing points of view.  Looking up a dictionary definition of the word helps us see why I don't think this is always a neutral term.  [].  The first definition is the weighing of pros/cons etc.  The second is the heated discussion.  Since it isn't always clear which is being intended I'm often reluctant to use the word if I mean the first but someone might read it as the second.  Thus I don't think it's a word that can always be seen as neutral.  I'm not sure if the same concerns would apply to the other words that were added.  This I think gets back to the earlier discussion about if this is a clear cut list or a limited list trying to get editors to consider these issues.  Springee (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Completely unnecessary. RockingGeo, this is a guideline, and changes like that should be discussed first. See what the top of the guideline states about consensus. And by "discussed first," I don't mean you simply leaving a comment here and re-adding the material or adding similar material in the absence of consensus. We are mindful of this guideline giving too many examples and that editors may disagree on some examples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * For my part, I generally replace "argued" (when used in the context of being a synonym for "said") when I see it on the grounds that it usually carries a connotation of being, well, argumentative. :-) Looking at the other examples from the diff, I would say that "added" may suggest that the person was pointing out something that was previously missed, "remarked" may suggest that the person was surprised, "mentioned" may suggest that it was said in an offhand manner, etc. Sunrise (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * , those are all good points. I don't really have an opinion either way about the usage of these words. At the time, I just couldn't think of any negative connotations (With the new arguments, I've changed my mind on some of them now), and since I couldn't find a discussion about them on the talk page, I decided to be bold. Sorry if I stepped on any toes. I'm not trying to use them in any edit or convince someone they're wrong, I'm just wanting to expand this page where I think it lacks content for future reference. Now that I know there's no consensus, I'll be happy to find one.
 * Which of these words (argued, contended, responded, replied, added, remarked, mentioned, assured, and reckoned) should be included as words to watch versus words that are universally neutral? RockingGeo (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No harm in being bold when you aren't being reckless in the process. I'm not sure about the other words as they aren't ones I've thought about.  "Argue" is one I've personally had trouble with so I never assume it's universally neutral.  The other thing to consider is this isn't meant to be an absolute list.  Sometimes people treat all these rules and lists as a go/no go for edits.  In reality they are meant to be guides that help us write better.  They aren't always used that way but that's a different argument ;)  Springee (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that an exhaustive list is impossible for everyone to come to a consensus on. That's why I really tried to only add words I thought were universally neutral or non-neutral, and that's why I'm trying to see if there is consensus on any of them now. That said, should words that have both neutral and non-neutral uses be listed as such (with context) to help prevent future pedantic arguments from slowing wikipedia down? RockingGeo (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anymore additions are needed. Like I stated, "argued" is validly used. But, as we can see above, some may disagree on "argued" (depending on how it's used). For the section in question, it's safer to go with terms that editors won't object to. And trying to list words that editors might object to can be problematic as well. The examples that are there, as good uses and questionable or bad uses, are fine. And, as we see in the  section below, simply stating "stated" or "said" can give a bit of finality to things that are contested. This is why I think "argued" is best in some cases, and it's certainly a reason to use "claim" in certain BLP cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM and secondary sources that are skeptical of primary ones.
I've run into this numerous times; I feel that WP:CLAIM should be more clearly worded on this point. When we have a reliable secondary source reporting on a primary source we can't cite directly (ie. an WP:RS quoting an individual), they will often say things like X claimed that Y punched him in the face. Often people will cite things like that and paraphrase to X said that Y punched him in the face, and object to reflecting the word claim or using any comparable expression of doubt by citing WP:CLAIM. I feel that in situations like that, using expressions of doubt is not only appropriate but should be generally recommended - we're required to reflect what the sources say; if a secondary source is worded in a way that expresses clear skepticism or caution about a statement by their primary source, I feel it's inappropriate to paraphrase it in a way that omits that skepticism. We have comparable language for WP:WEASEL (ie. we can use that wording if the source does), but not WP:CLAIM, where I feel it's even more important (in situations like the example I gave - which isn't that uncommon - omitting the expression of doubt from the source could even raise WP:BLP issues.) Expressions of doubt should be avoided when applied to the sources we're using directly, but when citing what a source says about someone else, we should use something comparable to the expressions they do. Making a statement sound more certain than the source does is every bit as big of a problem as making it sound less. (With the caveat that we have to consider if the source is WP:BIASED, may want to look at other sources to see how it's generally described, etc, but that all applies to anything.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 09 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You've brought up a valid point that I've also considered. Well, not the primary source vs. the secondary source aspect. In the section above, I stated that because "stated" or "said" can give a bit of finality to things that are contested, it's why I think "argued" is best in some cases, and it's certainly a reason to use "claim" in certain BLP cases. I do see uses of "claim" in BLP cases regarding rape, other sexual assault, or some other crime. And going with such wording is supported by MOS:ACCUSED, which states, "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." But we don't have anything similar in the WP:Claim section. But then again, I can understand editors objecting to casting doubt on an accuser's words, which is what "claimed" does. The WP:Claim section is concerned about the word deny (among other words) for BLPs because it can inappropriately imply culpability. Well, "claimed" can reject culpability and imply that the accuser is lying.


 * This is something we likely need an RfC on, and then advertise it at WP:Village pump (policy), because editors across Wikipedia are sure to disagree on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to "survived by"
I've read this section several times, and I still don't understand why "survived by", when used in the appropriate section of a subject's biography, should be avoided. Would someone mind explaining it to me, and ideally making the main article clearer? Thanks! Grover cleveland (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten this section based on my understanding. Is that more clear? Feel free to ping me if not, or if anyone disagrees with the new phrasing. -- Beland (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019
Hello I would like to elaborate on the death of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop - he was murdered by soldiers - Mr. Bishop was rescued from house arrest. He went with the people to the army headquarters where he was shot by soldiers. here is the source I found this information The deep, historical roots of Cuban anti-imperialism. By: Domínguez López, Ernesto, Yaffe, Helen, Third World Quarterly, 01436597, Nov2017, Vol. 38, Issue 11 Database: Academic Search Premier TinaThePerfectionist (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is the page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style. The Maurice Bishop page is currently not protected and you should direct your efforts there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by TinaThePerfectionist (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Some authorities consider ...
Saw a great illustration for the WP:WEASEL section:  From a bathroom fittings catalog, I can't seem to find a source on the webs. Mentioned in BBC article Social media awash with scorn for 'sloping toilet'. Shenme (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Legendary" causes lack of clarity
(Mobed here from this page) The more that is written on Wikipedia about mythical, fictional characters from ancient sagas & tales, more and more due to TV shows where they are portrayed as real people of history, and many excited TV viewers think they were (and want them to be), the more confusion the word "legendary" is causing. Legendary, as we know, is also often used about famous stars in many fields in our own time, actual persons who have existed. Does anyone think there might be a need for a guideline recommendation to avoid the word when describing people from old Viking stories etc. Ragnar Lothbroc was a man of legend, yes, but I think many people misunderstand it if we say about him and such persons that they are "legendary". It is then safe to assume thet he was (1) a real person and (2) greatly renowned and thus called "legendary". Mae West is a legendary movie star, but not a Viking princess. Thoughts? Couldn't "mythical" or "storied" be better to recommend than "legendary"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This MOS makes no recommendations in regards to this word, but Manual of Style/Words to watch lists "legendary" as its first word to watch. – sgeureka t•c 10:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Perhaps it would a good idea to especially address the matter of "legendary" also as causing confusion when used more and more often re: mythological characters mentioned in legends? Or specifically that we should avoid the word even in such articles? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If still nobody objects here, I will try to add this again to the "Easily confused terms" section. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your wording, which was reverted here and here, is an improvement.


 * SMcCandlish, thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a fair point, in theory, but I don't think it comes up enough to be an MoS item. The fix for possible confusion is to do "[Name] is a [Culture] legendary figure", or something more specific like "Robin Hood is an English legendary figure ...".  Just link the word so there can be no mistaking the meaning. We don't need to worry about the other meaning being confused with this one in the other direction, because WP wouldn't say that any pop-culture figure was "legendary" in the vernacular puffery sense, for WP:NPOV reasons.  "Legendary" should generally not be replaced by "mythical" or "mythological", except in cases tied directly to religion (in which case "legendary" was not the correct word in the first place). King Arthur is a legendary figure; Odin is a mythological one. The words are simply not actually synonymous, not in an encyclopedic register, anyway.  Anyone with a cultural anthropology, literature, or history background already knows that, but various editors with different educational focuses probably do not.  There are some other circumlocutions that can sometimes be used, depending on the subject and context, e.g. "[Name] is a figure from [Culture] folklore", etc.  This is really a WP:Common sense and WP:How to write better articles matter, not a "word to watch".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If we as our work platform are to assume that most of our readers are familiar with WP puffery wording policies and other specialist skills (as I am, but a majority is not) then there really is no point in discussing this. Sorry! I was trying to help the normal reader, notwithstanding the impressive knowlegde ans insight of some of my esteemed collegues here. Aren't we saying "screw them if they are too dumb to know everything we do about Wikipedia!"?
 * Lots of regular folks are watching TV and now think that Ragnar Lodbrok and Björn Ironside not only were real kings but were (wowee!) legendary in the puffery sense. We will see more and more of this. God fotsvettning!  --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Numerous
Looking in the numerous archives of this talk page I found "numerous" in 8 of 9, including a vintage 2011 section, but that boils down to "I'm now using another ISP". Math context, numerous ~ infinity, otherwise "too many to count". Is it still only me, even if "too many to count" could be "undetermined, less than ten" or another small number? –84.46.52.152 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Is powerful a weasel word?
Is powerful a weasel word? I've been trying this out for a while. Analog Horror, ( Speak ) 00:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This depends on the context. If "powerful" is being used to describe a song, then it's obviously a WP:PEACOCK matter. WP:PEACOCK is a section in this article guideline. "Powerful" shouldn't be used in that case unless quoting a source. If "powerful" is being used to describe an army, it's fine if that is how the reliable sources describe the army. "Powerful" might also be used to describe a weapon or other tool, and so on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WEASeL" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WEASeL. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Select / selected
Some editors seem to think "select" (or "selected") means nothing more than "some but not all", or perhaps "certain". Probably some day soon it will mean that, but for now dictionaries agree that it connotes an actual human selection for special favourable treatment. As such it is a peacock term in marketing; when admitting your product or service is available in only a few places, saying it is available in "select places" makes it sound precious. jnestorius(talk) 20:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

jnestorius(talk) 20:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Contentious labels - Reword
Looking at the line "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution";

There's an inherent unanswered question in this rule, which is; "If a wide number of reliable sources use a contentious label, which source do you attribute?". I think we should remove "in which case use in-text attribution" to avoid confusion. NickCT (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 9. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

How is "living with cancer" vague?
Its meaning is precisely determined: the person or animal is alive and has cancer... What is vague about it? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ExperiencedArticleFixer, the phrase living with cancer very often means dying from cancer. It's a euphemism.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But then of course, we're all dying. EEng</b> 04:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen previous discussion that may have led to this topic, but my take is that it *is* a euphemism. Do people object to "cancer patient"? My further take is that politically correct language almost invariably involves added syllables and words. Eg: "flight attendant" vs "stewardess/steward"; "developmentally disabled" vs "mentally retarded"; "physically challenged" vs "handicapped" (or "crippled"). It's a long list. DonFB (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're behind the times. We say "differently abled" now. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, ExperiencedArticleFixer removed "vague." So that's that for now. Not like the section specifically mentions cancer anyway. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Living with cancer" is used for those who have cancer, but for the moment are not suffering from it. Consider the case of a stage 4 patient on palliative care; they are not, at the moment, dying from it but the cancer is there and will come back at some point in the future and kill them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL and "Loby groups"
I am seeking guidance as to the Wikipedia policy for referring to interest groups/lobby groups/pressure groups/activist organizations/think tanks/ independent policy advisory bodies/ policy institutes/ policy forums etc.

There are a dizzying number of ways these groups self-identify, and typically a clear conflict with how opponents and other groups would classify them. Some are synonymous, while others refer to structural distinctions, some are euphemisms, some labels are hotly contested while others exist in the context of limited independent coverage. Do we adopt:
 * Their oficial self-identification
 * labels given by other official sources eg. government agencies
 * The most widely used label they are known by
 * The label with the best supporting sources
 * A mainstream dictionary definition
 * A neutral term- and if so how do we agree and source such a term.
 * Another system of referring to interest groups

Any Links to relevant WP are appreciated --Willthewanderer (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume we are talking about lobbying groups? If so, we should usually use the label most commonly used by high quality sources. Not all of the examples you listed are necessarily lobbying groups, although they often can be. For example, a group that only does public education is not necessarily a lobbying group, but they may be if they have legislative intent. - MrX 🖋 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is basically the same case as "fringe science", "conspiracy theory", "neo-Nazi", etc. WP should follow the preponderance of the sources in how they refer to the subject. Note that means independent sources, not socio-political enemies of the subject.  E.g., if the Southern Poverty Law Center or Simon Wiesenthal Center says some group is a racist thinktank producing fringe studies, they are not a reliable source for such a claim in WP's voice.  If the media rely on nothing but such socio-political enemies for such claims, our hands may be tied into saying something like "XYZ Group terms itself a 'neutral policy advisory forum',[1] while its detractors claim it has a far-right agenda; the Simon Wiesenthal Center calls XYZ a 'a racist anti-immigration lobby',[2], and the Southern Poverty Law Center termed it a 'special-interest group devoted to the maintenance of white privilege'.[3]"  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Corroborated
I would like to add "corroborated" to the yellow box under WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Here is one example of the word being misused to convey an idea not found in the source (corroboration of sexual assualt vs. corroboration that someone told someone else that they were sexually assaulted). Based on talk page discussions, I suspect that some editors don't understand the meaning of the word, or are simply trying to editorialize by using a more powerful version of "said". The example above is but one of several examples where I've seen the word misused editorially. - MrX 🖋 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * MrX is pointing to an edit by a person who added "Corroborating statements" in a "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" article. MrX started an RfC on the talk page of the article, where people are arguing whether to use the word. I do not know whether MrX has informed the person who made the edit, and the participants in the talk page discussions, about this WP:WTW proposal. As for the meaning: if it has been used multiple times where "said" would have sufficed, then it has been misused, but shouldn't MrX have demonstrated that before adding "corroborate" to WP:WTW? I reverted the addition and suggest now that we should wait for the RfC result. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC, and the discussion on the article talk page really has no bearing on the MOS. I've given a clear example of how the word can be misused as a weasel word. Can you articulate a policy based reason for objecting to adding this particular word to the guideline? - MrX 🖋 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How is corroborate a synonym for said? A definition for corroborate is "confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)." Synonyms given for it are "confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify; support, back up, back, uphold, stand by, bear out, bear witness to, attest to, testify to, vouch for, give credence to, substantiate, sustain, bolster, reinforce, lend weight to." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have identified an issue with the heading in the MOS, but that section is evidently for words that are similar to say/said. For example: expose, find, note, observe, insist, assert, etc. My assertion is that corroborate is sometimes misused and that it categorically fits best under that heading. I hope that makes sense. - MrX 🖋 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Use of expose and find aside, use of note, observe, insist, and assert are easily synonyms for said. Corroborate is not, per my initial post in this section. I don't think it belongs in that section. And even in the case of find, it's common for it to essentially equate to relay. For example, scientists relaying something. Insist is there because stating that someone insisted something can sound and/or be non-neutral. Simply stating that they said [so and so] suffices. Observed is sometimes used in place of said as well, but it comes across as a statement of fact. So we use stated or said instead. But substituting said for corroborate? No. If someone's statement supports another, I see no issue with making that clear, whether we opt to use the word support or something else instead of corroborate.


 * On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this page since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Let me try to understand. You consider "observed" to be synonymous with said, but not "corroborated". I dumbfounded about why you don't see how "corroborated" fits snugly into the explanatory text already in the MOS: "To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable." The purpose of this section of the MOS is not to identify forbidden words, but to prevent editorializing. - MrX 🖋 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that most of the words currently used there are used in cases where stated or said (or even relayed) suffice. Yes, a lot of editors and sources have used observed in a way that can easily be substituted for, or means, said. I don't see corroborate fitting snugly there because it is not used as a synonym for said. Unlike assert, it's not at all a synonym for said. And anyone using it like that is using it wrongly. I object to telling editors, "Hey? See the word corroborate in a sentence? Replace that with said." Also, I fail to see why corroborate should generally be avoided. And if one doesn't like the word, just add support in its place. I offered my opinion. Others may have different opinions. You can wait and see if anyone agrees with you to add corroborate. And as for editorializing, we already have a WP:Editorializing section. WP:Said is not it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We have different reasons but appear to agree that MrX's insertion wasn't justifiable. So, unless others appear and support it, I think we can conclude there was no consensus for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would chime in that a) misuse of "corroborate" isn't common enough on WP to necessitate a mention here (MoS should only contain things that come up frequently, or used to come up frequently until MoS addressed them); and b) even if we were to interpret the section in question more broadly, all that would do is vastly increase the number of words that could potentially be listed there (but without giving us any reason to turn that section into a longer list), so "corroborate" would be less rather than more likely to make the cut, due to the infrequency with which it's a WP-problem compared to other words. The general purpose of the section remains, and the reasoning in it is perfectly fine to apply to similar cases, including any in which "corroborate" (which has various implications) is being misused as a stand-in for "said", "wrote", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities
A Request for Comments has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education asking the following question: How should the ledes of articles about colleges and universities describe the general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution? Your participation and input would be greatly appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"Worldwide" as an "expression that lacks precision"
I've noticed over the years the term "worldwide" tends to be used vaguely and without robust support, usually to refer to an imprecise concept of something being not limited to one part of the world. Furthermore, in my experience, cultural events that are said to be "worldwide" (e.g. the hippie movement or Bob Marley record sales) often turn out in reality to be predominantly confined to certain cultural spheres (anglophone countries, "developed" countries, the Western world, unevenly-distributed diaspora communities, etc.). Unless used in a scientific context to denote that something is truly spread reasonably evenly throughout the world, this seems like a clear example of an "expression that lacks precision", and the subcategory that most closely fits it would be "Unspecified places or events". Could we add this term to the project page? GeoEvan (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that "worldwide" is fine. It's similar to "globally." It's like the synonym "globally." I can't see anything wrong with using these terms or that they should be added to the guideline. These are terms that we need to use at times, and they are often supported by reliable sources. So I wouldn't want to discourage their use. If editors are missing using "worldwide" to, for example, mean "United States", that's just poor writing. A clear misuse of the term. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If "Western world" or "Western countries" (etc.) should be used instead, use that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me as long as the spread is wide. Something big in Brazil, Germany and Japan is wide enough, something big in Austria, Hungary and Switzerland, not so much. If you're talking "sliced bread big", go with "universal", "ubiquitous" or "ultracommon". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Only avoid them when it's neutral
Many people (weasel words) have argued WP:CLAIM with me, saying that when the claims are disproved, it's perfectly fine to use words-to-watch. I am curious, when the claims are disproved how? By one WP:RS against others? By a preponderance of WP:RS? By a consensus or unanimity? What if we can't put the disproval in Wikipedia's voice but have to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, can we still use "claim" and "deny" for that which has been "disproved"? Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Elizium23, the usual standard is a preponderance of high-quality reliable source (because WP:DUE). What it never is, is editors' personal opinions that something has/hasn't been disproven.  There are times when those words are exactly the right ones, e.g., "The politician was ridiculed for denying that he said something inappropriate by saying 'I did not say the thing I just said'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "pedophile" to "Contentious label" section
I feel like this has to be added, because as stated on the article for pedophilia, it is a very misused term, often used to refer to someone who is sexually attracted to a minor, even if they are in or through puberty, or someone who committed child sexual abuse, instead of someone who is officially diagnosed with being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children in its formal sense. It is often used to evoke moral reaction than describing someone formally. I had to change "pedophile" to "convicted child sex offender" twice for references to Jeffrey Epstein.

Should we also extend to "-phile"s and other references to paraphilia, such as zoophilia and necrophilia, like calling someone a "zoophile" for committing bestiality? 18:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive290 and this regarding Mary Kay Letourneau, pedophile typically should not be used to describe BLP subjects (or even deceased subjects, in my opinion, unless widely discussed as having or possibly having been one). I've had to revert or remove pedophile as well. I don't support adding it to the guideline, though. This is because of the "in which case use in-text attribution" debate above; like I noted on the Mary Kay Letourneau talk page, the media often misuses the term pedophile. So a number of media sources calling someone a pedophile doesn't mean that we should as well. The media misused the term with regard to Mark Foley, but we shouldn't call Foley a pedophile in his Wikipedia article, even with in-text attribution. Currently, the "Scandal and resignation" section of that article states, "Through his lawyer, Foley insisted he was not a pedophile and asserted that he had not 'had contact' with a minor."


 * If we were to address more than pedophilia, adding something like "or saying that a person has a paraphilia"/"or referring to someone by a paraphilia" could be used. The guideline does currently have the "or a sexual practice a perversion" text. So it could go beside that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggested addition of "indeed" to section Editorializing
I find the word "indeed", with its editorializing tone, is quite frequently added by editors. Could we include in the list of words to watch in ? —Quondum 19:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(It seems to fit best in the second list: "but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ..."). —Quondum 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quondum, I moved it. I disagree that it fits better in the second list. I also don't see that it's needed at all. We don't need to include every possible example for editors to get the point. But, clearly, I didn't revert.


 * No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with your suggestion that it may be unnecessary to add more words; the text already liberally uses "such as" to indicate that the mentioned words are not exhaustive. On which list "indeed" fits into, it seems to be both, since it has different uses.  For example, "It was indeed X" is much like the use of "actually".  The example that I had in mind was "He hypothesized H.  Indeed, X was Y."  The use of "indeed" here connects two sentences, strongly implying the correctness of the prior hypothesis, which is an egregious example of editorializing.  In this use, it seems to fit with the second list.  Anyhow, no big deal.  I really only edited the word in because I had not had any responses to my suggestion.  —Quondum 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion related to the term "reportedly"
A move discussion is taking place that may be of interest to watchers of this page at Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations. I note that this term has been discussed here in the past. -- Netoholic @ 10:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a minor revision of MOS:ALLEGED
Of perhaps more interest to MoS-watchers, this discussion is relying on MOS:ALLEGED to suggest that WP cannot cast doubt on WP:FRINGE topics with terms like "reportedly" or "purportedly". But that is obviously not the intent of this guideline. We should probably clarify that the terms covered in that section can be (not "are") problematic – when they cast doubt in cases in which Wikipedia doesn't actually intend to (and we always intend to for fringe topics, often outright labeling them fringe or pseudoscience, conspiracy theory or folklore). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience with enforcing the WP:WTW guideline, there is a substantial number of editors who believe that it is mandatory to use such words when doubt is supported by a WP:RS. Not a preponderance of RS, not a WP:FRINGE situation, but when a RS supports doubt, WTW are mandatory. That's the gist of interpretation I've been receiving. Elizium23 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we self-evidently have some editors who think exactly the opposite, that WTW is basically a list of words that cannot be used on Wikipedia except inside a quotation. The fervor about this has reached WP:ANI pitch now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless my memory is failing me, I remember that you tweaked it by adding "also, scare-quoting: a Yale 'report'; undue emphasis: a Baptist church" sometime back. There was some kind of change you made to it. And you're saying it needs another change? Okay. Some proposed wording will help me see what you have in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The purposeful insertion of expressions of doubt is counter to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Its not our role to shed doubt in Wikipedia voice using "reportedly" or "purportedly", but to just attribute what non-FRINGE sources are actually saying - you wouldn't say "homeopathic remedies reportedly do not work", you'd say " finds no evidence that homeopathic remedies work". -- Netoholic @ 10:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty imagining a valid use of "purported" (adjective) or "purportedly" in the voice of WP, because that is editorializing, no matter how well-established the doubt about the subject may be. However, "purported" (verb) is fine, as in "X purported Y", since this is a statement of fact, which would need referencing in the usual way.  —Quondum 23:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

See also link for Embrace weasel words
It feels a little weird that we link to Embrace weasel words as a "see also" at the top of the section advising against using weasel words. While I generally support essays linking to their counterpoint (e.g. WP:Use a custom signature to WP:Use the default signature and vice versa), it's a little different when it's a widely established guideline linking to what I'd say is a small minority viewpoint. The link seems to be saying that the matter is unsettled enough that it's worth giving significant consideration to the other side, and I'm not sure that's something we should say in the voice of a Wikipedia guideline. Thoughts? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that essay should be tagged with humor. Elizium23 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The two complement each other. One should generally avoid weasel words, but there are situations when doing so makes for bad writing. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Label
Hey all, continuing on from an earlier discussion, I'd like to reconsider a proposed rewording to WP:LABEL. The problem with the current language as I see it is that it is constantly used to exclude any possibility of unattributed labels in the lede. It seems crazy that we can have dozens of sources that say "Joe Doe is X", but on Wikipedia we have to phrase it "according to the NYT, Joe Doe is X". NickCT (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Your version doesn't mention anything about in-text attribution. And use of "and are best avoided" isn't the same as "and should be avoided." So, without "in which case use in-text attribution", we'd get editors debating inclusion in an unhelpful way. Also, "not refuted by other reliable sources" is a WP:Due weight matter. If the label is widely used by reliable sources...with only a few reliable sources refuting it, we give most of our weight to the "widely used" aspect. But there is also the WP:BLP matter to consider. To repeat what I stated in the previous discussion: "[...] WP:INTEXT can be misleading when in-text attribution is used for something that should simply be stated in Wikipedia's voice because it's a consensus matter in the literature. But these days, I have seen a number of editors trying to take the 'widely used' aspect of WP:LABEL to mean that Wikipedia should also definitely call someone or something a contentious name in its own voice, including when it's only or mainly opinion pieces calling that someone or something that contentious name. And it's despite the fact that the WP:LABEL says 'in which case use in-text attribution.' The 'in which case use in-text attribution' aspect has helped somewhat in these cases, however." I noted that I have additionally "seen editors use it loosely, to, for example, state 'are considered by feminists [to be so and so]' rather than attribute the matter to just one person or a few people. And that helps the concern I have about misusing WP:INTEXT. But it's certainly still being misused to attribute a widely accepted matter to just one person or a few people." I stand by what I stated then. Despite its misuse, editors also use WP:LABEL with common sense; we do add material involving a contentious label without something like "according to the NYT, Joe Doe is X." Use of "are considered by feminists [to be so and so]" is one example. I'm not sure how best to reword the guideline to address those who may take "in which case use in-text attribution" to mean that we can't state something like "is widely considered to be [so and so]" without "according to", but I don't think your proposal would help. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would also disagree with a "not refuted" condition, but excluding both types of misuse of INTEXT is definitely necessary. I would argue for a relatively minimal type of edit, adding a general statement to the end of the existing text, maybe something like: "Such terms should only be used without attribution if it is warranted by the weight of the reliable sources." That would make it clear that using wikivoice is sometimes a possibility, but implies that there is a presumption against it, and also avoids committing to a specific threshold in order to leave room for judgement. If a stronger statement would be better, an alternative might be: "Such terms should only be used without attribution if it is warranted by reflects the weight consensus of the reliable sources." Would you agree with either of those options? Also, I think that in both cases it should be clear that the analysis considers opinion pieces to be generally irrelevant, but a specific comment to that effect could be added as well. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 09:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an about-to-be-archived BLP thread Applying controversial labels to people which, as I interpret it, favours being stricter with labels. And the previous discussion, as I interpret it, included editors who don't favour being less strict. So a lack of enthusiasm for laxity is already established. How about going the other way, and changing "are best avoided" to "should be avoided"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that someone needs to propose some wording that makes it clear that stating something like "widely considered" can be okay/can be in-text attribution. SlimVirgin is another who was clear about it being okay in the previous discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with including that in the suggestions I gave in my previous comment, e.g. by specifying without attribution, or with terms such as "widely considered" instead of just without attribution. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 08:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the first version of my suggestion, including the additional text addressing "widely considered". The other version would work for me as well. That said, I'm happy to discuss further, and of course I also have no objection if you just improve it directly. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sunrise, no need to ping me. I watch this talk page and pay attention to new posts (although I missed your "08:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)" post until now). Others can be pinged if they want to be. And on that note, also pinging SMcCandlish, WhatamIdoing, SlimVirgin (SarahSV), Aeusoes1 and Crossroads from the previous discussion.


 * I reverted pending further discussion. Your wording is "Such terms should only be used without attribution, or with terms such as 'widely considered', if it is warranted by the weight of the reliable sources." That's very redundant to "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." But it also conflicts with "in which case use in-text attribution." I don't see that it adds anything except making it clear that something like "widely considered" is allowed. But your wording suggests that "widely considered" isn't in-text attribution. In my and others' viewpoint, it is (if, for example, it's something like "widely considered by film critics"), and especially if the source states that exact wording. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I approve of reverting Sunrise's change, I don't think there's any tweaking that would make such a change good. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Flyer, I know that you watch this page, but the other option was deliberately leaving you out! :-)
 * It's meant as a clarification, not a repetition or a contradiction. The idea is that "widely used" represents a significant amount of weight, warranting mention with attribution, while a greater amount of weight (without specifying how much, but the other version uses "consensus" as the standard) allows mention without attribution. I'd also be fine with adding a clause saying that “widely considered” (or similar language) can also be justified by citing sources that use that specific language. It's not intended to imply that "widely considered" doesn't count as attribution - I do think of it differently from "typical" attribution (i.e. attribution to a specific person or organization), but I don't have an opinion either way on whether or not it should be considered as a subcategory of attribution or as something different.
 * My primary concern is the same one mentioned in the opening post, that the current version (in which case use in-text attribution) incorrectly suggests that unattributed labels are categorically forbidden. I suppose that if someone defined the term "attribution" narrowly, then "widely considered" would also be forbidden. You may recall that at one point this section was used to seriously argue for banning unattributed use of the term "pseudoscience", but the wording that resolved it ended up implying that pseudoscience is a special exception rather than an example of the way that sufficiently strong sources can make attribution unnecessary (and indeed including attribution may even violate neutrality). I'd be happy with other formulations as well, as long as this core issue is addressed. What sort of changes would make the proposal acceptable to you? <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd have to think about different wording to use. I'll consider something to propose. Will maybe get back to this in two or three days. Maybe sooner. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As seen below, WhatamIdoing proposed some new wording. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the proposed text above, the "refuted" bit would be an endless source of good-faith problems. The word seems to mean different things to different people.  At any rate, some people will think it means "denied" and others think it means "logically disproven", and these two sides will eventually fight over whether a denial counts.  Imagine a kid who has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, some people think that the kid yelling "I'm not getting any cookies!" is "refuting" the claim, and others believe that the claim is not at all refuted by such a self-serving denial, and that Mandy Rice–Davies applies.  (If you care more about what kind of cookies are in the cookie jar, then the most recent kind in mine were plain sugar cookies, but they're gone now.)
 * I think the system that editors want is approximately this:
 * Bob is widely described as a, and independent sources pretty much all agree. Article says either Bob is a or Bob is a . Bob denies this.
 * Bob is often described as a, but some independent sources disagree. Article uses WP:INTEXT attribution: Alice and Carol say that Bob is a.
 * Bob is occasionally described as a, and many independent sources disagree. Article says Carol says that Bob is a, but Alice and Joe say that Bob is not a (or they say that Bob is a different label).
 * Bob is rarely described as a, or this description only appears in weak sources: Article says nothing.
 * If that sounds about right to everyone, then we could figure out how to say it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, but it's kind of a belling-the-cat situation. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We've got no shortage of people willing to install the bell; the only problem is finding the right bell.


 * Something along those lines ought to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given what I've stated before on this topic (seen above), I would amend that with a mention about opinion pieces, opinionated commentary in non-opinion pieces, and BLPs. Opinion pieces can widely describe someone as whatever, but, per WP:WIKIVOICE, we shouldn't state it in Wikipedia's voice based solely on opinion pieces, and especially when the BLP subject objects to the term. We've had editors argue that because a bunch of opinion pieces, or texts in non-opinion pieces that are clearly expressing an opinion, call someone so and so (or state that what they did was so and so), then Wikipedia should as well. In these cases, there often or usually aren't independent sources disagreeing about which label is appropriate. But that doesn't mean that we are free to go ahead and call this person or their actions whatever. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you give a couple of examples (that you think have merit)? At the moment, it sounds like it would be impossible for Wikpedia's voice to ever state that anyone is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., because "That's just an opinion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the point. It's not common for scholarly reference works, as Wikipedia aspires to be, to outright call their subjects sexist, homophobic, and so forth. We should make it a reasonably high bar, lest we become a soapbox.
 * The "when independent sources disagree" wording is going to cause issues because often, what we have is that some sources (often obviously opinionated ones like opinion pieces by pundits of whatever stripe) say someone is X, and other equally good or better sources about that person, rather than arguing they are not X, simply describe them without the label. So let's say we have source 1 that calls Alice X, and sources 2, 3, 4, and 5 that talk about her but don't at all mention the claim that she is X. Does that mean we can call her X unattributed? There's no sources disagreeing, after all.
 * It would still obviously not meet WP:Due, but editors who have strong feelings about Alice and what she stands for will argue this. Yes, despite the "unless widely used" clause. I don't see a need to prove that this has happened. I believe that any of us who has edited around a controversial topic knows this will happen, and I'd say the burden of proof lies with those proposing a change.
 * Perhaps, building on what Flyer22 Frozen said, we could add a footnote along these lines: "Marginal sources, such as opinion pieces, may not be used to support a value-laden label on a biography of a living person." Crossroads -talk- 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

While it’s a high bar, the bar does exist. Scholarly reference works do use these terms when it is warranted, and the terms are definitely considered to be legitimate concepts - it's just that in academia, it's much less common for there to be any purpose or benefit in identifying or debating specific instances of it. We shouldn't be giving incorrect or oversimplified guidance on the grounds that otherwise people will misuse or misunderstand it. If someone is going to claim that a single opinion piece is sufficient to meet a standard of "widely used", they'll probably make invalid arguments regardless of what we say here. Of course, I'm happy to make it harder for them by including the footnote you propose (and for that matter, I’d ask why it should be limited to BLPs!)

In general, I think describing this in terms of weight (or perhaps degree of agreement) would probably work better than saying that sources can either agree or disagree. This addresses the situation where a label is ignored by most sources, and also accounts for poor sources by implication. If I insert my own approach from above, with modifications (and the footnote proposed by Crossroads included as well):

Feedback/improvements welcomed. The "consensus of sources" approach is also still a possibility. And while I doubt this is perfect, either of these versions would at least be better than the inaccurate wording we have at present. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 17:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing asked for examples. I think that WhatamIdoing is already aware of Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive292. In that discussion, things like "years of scholarly review" and "unless there's widespread agreement on the term outside the recentist/immediateist press" were argued. David Duke was given as an example. But I see that even in the current lead of the David Duke article, there is the following attribution, "The Anti-Defamation League has described Duke as 'perhaps America's most well-known racist and anti-Semite.'"


 * As for Sunrise's amended proposal, I would rather it be an RfC and/or advertised at WP:Village pump (policy). This is because the "in which case use in-text attribution" piece is long-standing, widely cited, and affects Wikipedia on a large scale (like the BLP discussion I linked to above indicates). It's not something that should be decided on by a couple or few editors. Regarding the "Marginal sources" footnote? Those sources are sometimes used in BLPs as long as they are given in-text attribution and aren't undue. So, to me, that wording should state, "Marginal sources, such as opinion pieces, should not be used to describe a living person by a value-laden label in Wikipedia's voice." Or "Editors should not use marginal sources, such as opinion pieces, to support a value-laden label in Wikipedia's voice." The latter addresses not focusing solely on a BLP. But, to be clear, I'm not supporting changing this long-standing part of the guideline without the change having wide support. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * David Duke is not the best example to use, because of that same issue where BLP is added to the situation. Focusing too much on terms that are commonly used for describing people (such as "racist") causes a similar problem. Since the concept applies more broadly, I would say that choosing the more complicated example is a mistake. After the general principle is established, any number of additional restrictions can certainly be added for the specific category of uses on BLPs, which I'm happy to agree with. For the specific case of Duke, I would note that he is still described without attribution as a "white supremacist", and furthermore as having "advocated Neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". In a couple of sentences, the principle is applied several times; I would also note that only one of them applies directly to the person (the second being the description of particular conspiracy theories as "Neo-Nazi" and "anti-Semitic", and the third is in describing the conspiracy theories as in fact being conspiracy theories in the first place). In my view, these are appropriate descriptions. However, the point is not that a specific article uses a specific term, but rather as an illustration that using contentious terms without attribution is permissible under the right circumstances, and in fact may be required by NPOV (the canonical example, of course, being "pseudoscience").
 * For now, I won’t pursue this further myself, unless the discussion continues or the issue is brought up again. If you’ve been thinking about this, I would still be interested in any proposal you may have. However, an RfC would be overkill for the specific point I’m interested in, which can be addressed by a minimalist description of NPOV (any other effects being incidental). I won’t oppose the idea of getting more input, of course, but I would be worried that the discussion might get derailed or attract POV-pushing and simply end up confusing the issue instead. Until this is solved, perhaps one could say that when the sources are strong enough, this page no longer applies because the term has become inherently non-contentious for that particular situation. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 23:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Duke is "still described without attribution as a 'white supremacist', and furthermore as having 'advocated Neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" because of the weight/quality of the sources. This is why I noted that things like "years of scholarly review" and "unless there's widespread agreement on the term outside the recentist/immediateist press" were argued, with Duke as an example.


 * As for an RfC, I would still feel that it is best per what I stated in my "21:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sunrise, I'd rather not see the wikivoice jargon in this page, because unnecessary jargon is exclusionary.
 * I thought about this question, and I have a different example. Google Books gives me 200 books that contain either "trump is racist" or "trump is a racist" (quoted phrase search), and Google Scholar gives me 200 papers containing those phrases.  Obviously, scholarly works do assign such labels to people on occasion.  For more obvious cases, we do want to be able to say that notorious racist groups are racist groups.  It would be unfortunate if anyone thought LABEL prevented them from saying that the Ku Klux Klan is a racist group on the grounds that it's "just an opinion".
 * And with that in mind, I'm not entirely certain about the footnote. I wonder how much of Politics of J. K. Rowling could be written if opinion pieces (and even weaker sources) were excluded.  Sometimes the whole point is that X controversially labeled Y. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Positive loaded terms?
WP:SAID states that loaded terms require extra care, but does that mean they must never be invoked? I'm asking specifically about loaded terms with positive connotations to accompany positive attributes (e.g., the term laud in relation to the adjective magnificent), which aren't outlined in the section. Would it be inappropriate to write that X lauded Y as magnificent? KyleJoan talk 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * KyleJoan, I hope that you already got an answer elsewhere. IMO the answer is yes, or at least mostly yes.  It's not a dispassionate, encyclopedic tone, and usually, "X said Y was 'magnificent'[1]" is more appropriate.  However, if the facts indicate a more extreme level of praise, then a simple "said" might not convey the facts adequately.  It'd probably be better, in such a circumstance, to say "X lauded Y as magnificent" than to say that "X extravagantly extolled the apparently endless virtues and what X called the 'bountiful magnificence of Y' at great length".  (As a separate consideration, magnificence is an opinion, so we would normally use that word only if it was actually used by X.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, ! I'm in complete agreement that it's not appropriate to use loaded terms in a lot of cases (e.g., it makes no sense to state X glorified Y as "nice"). I'm speaking about paraphrases of sources in which the facts indicate a more extreme level of praise, as you put it. Take this USA Today review of the 2019 film Little Women, in which the critic wrote, The acting performances are stellar across the board, though the biggest joy of Little Women [...] is Gerwig’s magnificent screenplay, a fantastic follow-up to her Oscar-nominated Lady Bird that makes Alcott's time and language feel effervescently modern and authentically nostalgic. In your opinion, would a paraphrase that reads something along the lines of "USA Today lauded Gerwig's script as 'magnificent' and said it 'makes Alcott's time and language feel effervescently modern and authentically nostalgic'" be appropriate? KyleJoan talk 05:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would probably be acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the word "falsely/false" imply deception?
Does the word "falsely" reasonably imply an attempt to deceive? In a number of Wikipedia articles we can statements similar to this hypothetical "The Senator falsely claimed [the thing] would reduce/increase deaths[source]." My concern with these statements in general is the use of the word "falsely" (or false) as it can imply a deliberate intent to mislead. "X falsely claimed" sentences are typically backed by source articles that are critical of the sentence subject (The Senator). A politician might claim a new program would create 1000 new jobs but in the end it creates only 100. Is it correct to say they "falsely" claimed the program would create 1000 new jobs? Would we ever say "the weatherman falsely said it would be sunny this weekend"?

Personally I think "falsely" is not an neutral term and should be used only when the sources make it clear the speaker/source was intending to mislead. As such I think it's use should be with care perManual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. It suggests to the reader that we doubt the sincerity of the speaker when the claim was made. I'm interested in the views of others since this seems to come up a lot with political articles. Springee (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I think it carries that connotation and you have a reasonable concern. I believe that other expressions could be used in its place: "mistakenly" perhaps? Of course, that also imputes a thought process. What about "wrongly"? Or reword to say "made the false statement"?
 * FYI: "claimed" is a prime WTW as well, just so we're clear on that. Elizium23 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elizium23. I agree in most cases there are other options.  "Mistakenly" would work for something like the weatherman incorrectly predicting rain this weekend.  In other cases such as my 100 vs 1000 jobs I think it would have to be based on context.  I've seen some external sources say "wrongly".  Do you think it's reasonable to have "false/falsely" added to our words to watch?  Springee (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, false and falsely imply deception. "False" can be used in other senses sometimes but I have a hard time thinking of a case where "falsely" would mean anything but deceptively. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This really depends on the context. In the example you give above, "false" might not be right word to use. But, let's say a right-wing talking head says face masks and social distancing to stop COVID-19 "have no basis in science." In that case "false" seems appropriate.  Calidum   19:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a case where I would have to say we would treat "falsely" the same way we treat other contentious labels (alt-right, fringe, anti-vax etc). If it isn't widely claimed we don't use language that implies deception.  Springee (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Falsely is not a contentious label. In any case involving pseudoscience, we should be as clear and direct as possible. - MrX 🖋 16:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me offer an example I used on 's talk page. I have an anti-vax friend.  Based on genuine concern for a mutual friend she tried to explain the "significant causal link between thimerosal and autism".  I'm sure she believes in what she is saying.  However, I also know that research into the subject doesn't back her claims.  Let's just say her claims are wrong.  So would I say:
 * Michelle falsely said thimerosal causes autism This one implies an intent to mislead or deceive her friend.
 * Michelle said thimerosal causes autism This one is problematic since, absent reader knowledge of the subject it may imply Michelle correctly said thimerosal causes autism.
 * Michelle said thimerosal causes autism. This view is refuted by experts in the field This clearly states that Michelle's view is refuted by experts but doesn't suggest intent on Michelle's part.
 * Michelle incorrectly stated thimerosal causes autism This also avoids intent but perhaps suggests an accidental error vs a clear POV that isn't backed by research.
 * Taking this a step further what if we have a case that isn't quite a black and white. Michelle claims that science hasn't proven there is no connection between thimerosal and autism.  This is actually a true claim is logically impossible as it would involve proving a negative.  However, the actual research can say with a very high level of statistical confidence that there is no evidence of a link.  In this second case not only would "falsely" be a problem as it suggests an intent to mislead, its also wrong because the claim is actually true though misleading.
 * Anyway, I would suggest we should make a clear policy or guideline stance that "falsely" should be avoided due to the implied intent aspect. I think it could be a contentious label or an expression of doubt.  Springee (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Erroneously" might be better since it implies an error not a deliberate intent to mislead. We can't though legislate for every use of every word in English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Erroneously" suggests something was said in mistake. "Falsely" is good because it encompasses both willful deception and inadvertent errors. The fact that "false" is the go-to term for fact-checkers is a good indication that we should stick to "false" as a term when intent is unknown. Fact-checkers specifically avoid "lie" precisely because that specifically points to intent (unlike "false"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Mark's statement helped me see part of the problem here. The scope of "falsely" is very wide: the whole range of statements that can be untrue, from untruthful statements to false but earnestly held beliefs to errors of fact or of memory. Sometimes this breadth is a good thing, when the nature of the error in question is unknown or contested. So sometimes "erroneously" - which implies a narrower scope centred around "error" - would be an inappropriate term to choose, if it is important (per sources) to allow for the possibility of deliberate deception. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snoogan, I agree that "erroneously" like "incorrectly" can suggest a mistake in the same way "falsely" can suggest intent to deceive. The best of my 4 suggestions is the one that says what she said then says what experts say.  "False" is also the go to for phrases like "false testimony", "false report", "false passport", "falsification of records".  Part of the solution here is to really stick with the sources.  If the source doesn't say "false" then the Wiki edit should avoid it as well.   Springee (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is adding those "false + X" terms which specifically denote deception though, so it's unclear why you're bringing up "falsification of records" and the like. It's like saying we can't use "scientific" because "pseudoscientific" exists. As for saying "contradicted by experts", sure that's fine on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes it's better to concisely state "false", sometimes it's preferable to say "contrary to the scientific consensus", sometimes it's better to say "experts contradict this", sometimes it's better to say "studies contradict this". Saying "false" shouldn't be specifically avoided though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So what you are claiming is that it's unreasonable to assume the sentence "S falsely stated Y was Z" actually means "S intended to mislead by stating Y was Z". What about the other way, is it unreasonable to assume the sentence "S erroneously stated Y was Z" as "S made an unintentional error by stating Y was Z".  If "erronously" can imply unintentional/inadvertent then why can't falsely imply deception?  Why is one ambiguity of meaning OK and the other isn't?  This guideline mentions things like "claim" which has a clear legal meaning but in common language can imply doubt.  Why would you treat "falsely" differently.  Springee (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Erroneously" excludes deception. "Falsely" encompasses both deception and inadvertent error. Which is why fact-checkers do not use "erroneously" (inadvertent error) nor "lie" (intentional deception) whereas they all use "false" (which does not pass judgment on what the intent was). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think "Erroneously" excludes deception. Can you provide a dictionary definition that supports that claim?  How do you ensure readers don't take "S falsely said X" to mean S lied vs S made a factually incorrect statement?  Why should we tolerate such ambiguity?  How is that ambiguity not a risk to SYNTH policy?  This is a phrasing you use quite a bit when adding negative material to articles and I guess it's easier than following the phrasing of sources.  Springee (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Webster's defines "erroneously" as "containing errors", and the concept of "error" does generally exclude intentionally misleading statements. It seems clear to me that "erroneous" is fairly narrow in scope while "false" is wide. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So we follow to the next definition, error, and it says 1. a mistake or 2. the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgment. So erroneously doesn't by definition exclude deception.  I would tend to read it as excluding deception but then I wouldn't use it in a case where it isn't clear why the bad information was offered.  I think all of this gets back to my core concern regarding ambiguity.  It's seems like we are always better off using a form like "S said X.  Experts disagree and say Y".  It doesn't add motive or "should have know" implications to the discussion.  If more is needed we follow what the RS says.  We should not use terms that, per their dictionary definitions can imply deception. Springee (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't move goalposts: an "error in judgment" is nothing like the same thing as "deliberate deception", and neither is an "error in conduct". So don't go out of your way to make "erroneous" seem more ambiguous than it actually is. Your statement that We should not use terms that, per their dictionary definitions can imply deception is not backed up by any sources beyond bald assertion that the terms in question do imply deception. On the other hand, we should certainly not use terms that exclude the possibility of deliberate deception when the best sources do not do so. Otherwise we are whitewashing, against policy. There is also an implicit FALSEBALANCE in "S said X. Experts disagree and say Y" formulations (or perhaps just a creeping Nietzscheanism), which should equally be avoided. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No general rule - to say that "X person falsely asserted Y" does not imply that X knowingly did so, in ordinary English. If the false assertion is known to be made knowingly, then this is additional information (to be added through the use of modifiers or alternative word choice), and if the false assertion is known to be made unknowingly, this equally is additional information to be specified. The use of "falsely" on its own does not imply anything one way or another, although there may well be more felicitous language available in many cases. Anyway, "falsely" is certainly not a "contentious" term, and LABEL-creep ought to be avoided for the health of WP, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How do we ensure a reader doesn't take the use of the word "falsely" to imply an intent to deceive (false testimony)? Springee (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the comment I just added above. Ideally, we would specify precisely the range of intent allowed for by the best sources, no more and no less. Sometimes the remaining range is quite wide, in which case we should use fairly unadorned terms. I think our readers can generally distinguish between "false assertions" and "false testimony" on the whole, just as they can distinguish between a "faithful friend" and a "faithful husband". Newimpartial (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. False just means "not true" and carries no weight of intent behind it.  Words like "deceptive" would be used instead if the writer had meant the reader to assume intent to falsify.  I find no problem with "falsely claimed" if the claim is shown not to be true, regardless of whether or not the claimant believed it ahead of time or not.  There are other words that carry the intent to deceive, but "false" is not one of them.  It's perfectly neutral. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would we caution against using the word "claim" but not "falsely"? A claim is simply a statement that has yet to be proven or disproved.  S claimed to have salad for lunch.  However, we understand that claimed can imply doubt.  Why wouldn't we treat "falsely" the same way, especially in a BLP where policy says we should always err on the side of neutrality?  I get that not everyone nor in every instance is "falsely" going to be seen as implying deception.  However, it is often used in BLP in ways that can reasonably imply the BLP subject meant to deceive.  Why allow the ambiguity when alternatives exist?  Springee (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's look at examples, shall we? "X claimed that the sky was blue" - this statement seems obviously problematic, in spite of the likely truth of the claim. "X falsely asserted that the sky was green" - this seems much more neutral than the "claimed" ststement, and potentially appropriare if we don't know X's true motives. On the other hand, "X asserted that the sky was green, but experts disagree" seems to me to be obvious FALSEBALANCE and not correct NPOV at all, even (especially) in a BLP context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a convincing example. "X made a claim that the sky was blue".  If we are considering evidence then I see that as a basic statement of what X has asserted.  Perhaps the sky was blue, perhaps the sky was gray.  If you said X falsely said the sky was blue I and we have a whole section talking about sources X said [this] but it wasn't true then I could reasonably assume X was trying to mislead.  X falsely told the reporter the sky was blue.  X falsely told the police the sky was blue.  X falsely told congress the sky was blue.  I do agree that we have to be careful with "...but experts disagree" since it could imply that X is an expert in their own right.  This does suggest that we should try to stick to what the source material actually said and avoid using balance terms (X said but experts said) or "false" unless that is what the source says.  Springee (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes according to most dictionaries - The adverb "falsely" is usually defined as dishonest, deceptive, treacherous, faithless, or insincere.     . The adjective "false" is often defined with multiple meanings, one of which is just "not true" and the others are variations of dishonest, insincere, etc. (see same links as prior). The statement  means something different than . The latter means they screwed up; the former means they lied. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 03:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I teach this things to undergrads and no, "false" means "not true", not "lie". --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You should teach them the correct meaning instead. Dictionaries win. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 14:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to offer proof of that "correctness"? Merriam-Webster's gives both colloquially, but in classical logic "false" is just "not true". --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did teach to undergrads but we didn't get into the use of "false" in our context other than perhaps false positive. Per dictionary definitions false is ambiguous with respect to intent.  Depending on the implied definition it can include an intent to deceive.  That is why I think we should discourage it's general use (absent use by the source material) when we mean A provided information that was not correct.  The writer may not intent to load the language but a reader can reasonably come away with the understanding that deception was intended.  This caution is no different than how we treat words like "claimed". "X claimed the car drove fine" is more likely to be taken as a skeptical claim vs "X said the car drove fine".  Springee (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries order definitions (with the notable exception of OED, which uses etymological evolution) from most common/widespread usage to least. In all six of the provided dictionary examples, a definition that states "false" equates to intentional deception is a secondary definition. A definition indicating that the word simply means "incorrect" or "untrue" is the primary definition. The dictionaries actually support the understanding that "false" is primarily understood to neutrally indicate "erroneous", and do not indicate it is usually defined as dishonest, deceptive, treacherous, faithless, or insincere. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying no reader would incorrectly assume the secondary definition vs the first? Is your argument consistent with phrases like "false police report"?  Would you assume that when I used the term "argument" that I meant the heated exchange kind vs the "reason or set of reasons" kind?  Again, if we have other words to watch because one of their definitions can add unintended meaning why would we not treat this one the same way?  Springee (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're quoting is the definition of "falsely" not "false". I underlined the words "adjective" and "adverb" to help make the distinction but oh well. You'll note the question asked about the adverb. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee, I'm saying the dictionary definitions support the understanding that "incorrect" is the most widely understood definition. Whether or not a reader incorrectly assumes what the word means isn't the question, and trying to anticipate misunderstandings on the part of readers seems like a wild goose chase to me. The question is what the usage implies, and the dictionary definitions supplied here tell us that the usage is widely understood to mean "incorrect". Grandpallama (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But do we know that is how readers will most often interpret the word when used like "John falsely claimed his opponent supported new taxes [citation]". What if we found that 49% of the time readers took falsely to mean intent to deceive?  Would that still be OK?  What if I said "masks have been shown to be ineffective in stopping Covid-19 transmission" (note: I personally do not believe this).  Someone could say "Springee falsely said X".  What if I was thinking of this study and this was prior to its eventual retraction [].  What I was saying turned out to not be true but my claim was true based on the information I had at the time.  The fact that one of the common definitions of the word implies that I'm being deceptive vs misinformed is a problem for impartiality.  Springee (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument and its merits, but the definitions that Levivich has provided indicate that readers will not most often interpret the word in the way you are concerned. The most common interpretation will be a netural "untrue". Grandpallama (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, per the dictionary examples that were provided. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Every dictionary example defines "falsely" as with intent to deceive. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a secondary definition, yes. Every dictionary example supports the understanding that "falsely" is primarily understood as "incorrectly". Grandpallama (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Better check again. The first link, for example, only provides one definition of the adverb "falsely". So do most of the others. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. The first link, to Merriam-Webster, does not provide any definitions for "falsely". It provides a definition for the use of the word "false" as an adverb (as in "he played me false"), which is a different usage from "falsely". "Falsely" is an adverbial construction of "false", which is why it is not called out separately for definitions. Grandpallama (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same definition from Merriam-Webster?
 * So the first two definitions of the adjective are "not genuine" and "intentionally untrue". Only the third definition is "not true". Meanwhile, the only definition of the adverb is "in a false or faithless manner: treacherously". Are we on the same page, literally, now? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 19:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bludgeoning the conversations with your ongoing misunderstandings of the entries and of what I have/haven't said isn't helping make the case. The dictionary entries do not prize a definition of intent, nor is the increasingly problematic attempt to equate the adverb "false" with the adverb "falsely" accurate. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No - It very much depends on context. False simply means incorrect, wrong, untrue, inaccurate, negation, etc. It an editor intends to convey deception, they should use the word "deceptively" or similar. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bludgeoning the conversations with your ongoing misunderstandings of the entries and of what I have/haven't said isn't helping make the case. The dictionary entries do not prize a definition of intent, nor is the increasingly problematic attempt to equate the adverb "false" with the adverb "falsely" accurate. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No - It very much depends on context. False simply means incorrect, wrong, untrue, inaccurate, negation, etc. It an editor intends to convey deception, they should use the word "deceptively" or similar. - MrX 🖋 16:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adverb or Adjective Perhaps this is the question. I think most who see the word as neutral are thinking of it as an adjective describing a noun. A false claim, using the first definition of the adjective would be a factually incorrect claim. But when used as an adverb the implication is deception or similar per the primary and/or only adverb definitions provided by the following dictionaries: Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Dictionary.com and Collins dictionaries (links in a post above). The OED definition doesn't include deception. The Cambridge does as a secondary definition. This at least to some extent appears to be a US vs UK difference in usage. Still, with 4 dictionaries saying the adverb case included deception or similar intent I think we can say the adverb case should only be used when the source supports it. Springee (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the issue. The definitions of "false" and "falsely" are the same. There is a separate definition for the specific use of "false" (not "falsely") as an adverb. This is a rarely-used adverb, and certainly not in the contexts that (I think) prompted you to raise this question for discussion. (I can't imagine a news source saying "But politician x played his constituency false.") The dictionaries absolutely do not suggest the adverb case included deception or similar intent in regard to "falsely". Grandpallama (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The four dictionaries I listed most certainly do say the adverb "falsely" includes deception or similar. Just look at the links above. MW has only a single adverb definition for "false", in a false or faithless manner : TREACHEROUSLY.  So while, per MW, the adjective "false" may not imply deception, the adverb does.  Per MW, the only adverb definition is the one above so that dictionary is saying that adverb - false always has the negative connotation. Springee (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the entirety of what I wrote. I wrote the The dictionaries absolutely do not suggest the adverb case included deception or similar intent in regard to "falsely". And, as I pointed out, the use of "false" as an adverb is different from "falsely". You cannot use definitions for the former to support claims about the latter. Grandpallama (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I cited MW, adverb definition of "false". MW search for "falsely" points to false.  AHD: adv false, falsely: In a treacherous or faithless manner: play a person false. Dictionary.com, adverb dishonestly; faithlessly; treacherously: OTHER WORDS FROM FALSE false·ly, adverb.  Collins: ADVERB 11. in a false or dishonest manner (esp in the phrase play (someone) false).  So all 4 show adverb-false to have a level of deception.  Springee (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect understanding of how dictionaries present definitions. The word "false" is primarily an adjective (and thus adjectival definitions appear first). Definitions of that adjective are provided in descending order of their usage. The word "false" is secondarily used as an adverb. The definition specifically for the adverbial usage of "false" is provided. Separately, the adjective "false" can also be made into the adverb "falsely"; the adverb "false" cannot transform into the adverb "falsely", because it is already in its adverbial form for that particular usage. No new "falsely"-specific definitions are offered, which means the adverbial definitions of "falsely" follow the usage ordering of the adjective "false". The definition of the adverb "falsely" does not somehow match up directly with the adverb "false".
 * In your presented argument, equating the adverbial usages, "play someone falsely" and "play someone false" would both be correct and mean the same thing; however, the former is a grammatical usage error. Again, the definition for the use of the adverb "false" is not the same as for the adverb "falsely". Grandpallama (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are really stretching to try to claim that "Falsely adv" shouldn't be assumed to include deception. Springee (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think I have laid out a fairly methodical argument that dictionaries refute the deception argument, and that it's a stretch to make connections in dictionary entries that the dictionaries explicitly do not themselves make; I haven't offered a personal opinion on the matter at all, beyond my knowledge of grammatical construction. One could, for instance, argue that the dictionaries are behind the times and the word has evolved faster than they have been updated. But to use the current entries to justify this argument necessitates ignoring how dictionaries are organized and the context in which they present definitions and usage. Grandpallama (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that the ambiguity of false depends on the context. A "false police report" indicates deception because that is a specific phrase that has been coined to indicate someone has filed a police report with the intention to deceive. The same with "false witness."
 * Because it depends on context, we're going to have to task editors with using their judgement on a case-by-case basis, not make a blanket proscription on the words false or falsely. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what dictionaries Grandpa is reading, but I just pasted the entire Merriam-Webster definition above. The first two definitions of the adjective are "not genuine" and "intentionally untrue"; the third is "not true". The one and only definition of the adverb is "in a false or faithless manner: treacherously". Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 19:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So what? You've made your point several times already. There are other dictionaries, other definitions, and other editors who disagree with your interpretation. Please stop repeating your arguments. - MrX 🖋 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Levivich, I believe the other editors are correct here. M-W.com does not actually provide a definition for the adverb falsely.  It only provides a definition for the adverb false, as in "his friends played him false" (i.e., they tricked him).  That's not at all the same meaning as "His friends falsely said...".  Their example of "other words" derived from false is "She was falsely accused".  That phrase is used even in the case of purely accidental, good-faith mis-identifications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you go to m-w.com and type in "falsely", you get m-w's entry for false, where "falsely" is listed as an "other word', so I think they're the same. But let's put falsely aside and just look at false. The first definition at m-w is "not genuine", which doesn't mean merely "incorrect", and implies deception--which is what this thread is asking about.
 * The m-w entry also has a usage note about halfway down the page, which reads (emphasis in original)
 * I don't think "ranging from fickleness to cold treachery" includes being simply incorrect, although I suppose that doesn't necessarily imply deception.
 * Continuing to scroll down the page, m-w provides definitions of "false" from its English Language Learners dictionary, Kids dictionary (adjective: , adverb: ), Medical dictionary , and Legal dictionary.
 * To me it's clear that that the definition of false, according to m-w, includes a connotation of deception ("not genuine") that is beyond merely "incorrect". And since false is the m-w entry that comes up when you enter "falsely" (and "falsely" is listed as an "other word" on the entry for false), I think the m-w definitions of false (adverb) apply to the adverb falsely. Beyond m-w, I linked to five other dictionaries in my original !vote. Le v ! v ich 04:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, let's not "put falsely aside". That's the exact word that we're discussing.  The very first sentence of this section says 'Does the word "falsely" reasonably imply an attempt to deceive?'.  Not false.  Falsely.  Only your last two online dictionaries give definitions for falsely, and neither of them lead with a sense of deceptiveness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the adverb "false" and the adverb "falsely" have two distinct meanings, the former carries a sense of deceptiveness and the latter does not? Le v ! v ich 06:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Playing someone false" is always bad faith; it's a particular idiom that has a single, narrow meaning.  "Doing something falsely" does not have as narrow a meaning.  I believe, e.g., that it is possible to falsely accuse someone without making that accusation "in a false or faithless manner:  treacherously".  Under the narrow definition you've been arguing for, "Oops, we made a false accusation against you" and "Oops, we falsely accused you" would somehow have significantly different meanings (and under your definition, one of them would be grounds for a slander lawsuit in some countries, because under your definition, you'd be saying 'Oops, we intentionally lied when we accused you for the purpose of harming you).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To me it's clear that that the definition of false, according to m-w, includes a connotation of deception ("not genuine") that is beyond merely "incorrect". And since false is the m-w entry that comes up when you enter "falsely" (and "falsely" is listed as an "other word" on the entry for false), I think the m-w definitions of false (adverb) apply to the adverb falsely. Beyond m-w, I linked to five other dictionaries in my original !vote. Le v ! v ich 04:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, let's not "put falsely aside". That's the exact word that we're discussing.  The very first sentence of this section says 'Does the word "falsely" reasonably imply an attempt to deceive?'.  Not false.  Falsely.  Only your last two online dictionaries give definitions for falsely, and neither of them lead with a sense of deceptiveness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the adverb "false" and the adverb "falsely" have two distinct meanings, the former carries a sense of deceptiveness and the latter does not? Le v ! v ich 06:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Playing someone false" is always bad faith; it's a particular idiom that has a single, narrow meaning.  "Doing something falsely" does not have as narrow a meaning.  I believe, e.g., that it is possible to falsely accuse someone without making that accusation "in a false or faithless manner:  treacherously".  Under the narrow definition you've been arguing for, "Oops, we made a false accusation against you" and "Oops, we falsely accused you" would somehow have significantly different meanings (and under your definition, one of them would be grounds for a slander lawsuit in some countries, because under your definition, you'd be saying 'Oops, we intentionally lied when we accused you for the purpose of harming you).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * All this arguing could be avoided. Clearly false sometimes carries a connotation of intentional deception, and since untrue is a drop-in substitute which largely (I believe) avoids that connotation, why not use that instead? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So the adverb we would use would be untruly? Scrumptious!- MrX 🖋 13:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "incorrectly" Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of "controversial" in the lead and beyond references to people in WP:LABEL. Dispute at the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article.
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns not only whether or not "controversial" should be used in the first (lead) sentence of the article, but also whether or not "controversial" applies beyond references to people in WP:LABEL. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be helpful to change the first sentence to "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express a contentious opinion about a person, place, thing, action, or idea, and are best avoided"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The line in question is the following: "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." That is the one that needs changing. At the above linked talk page, I stated, "I'd been thinking for sometime that an editor might try to state that 'controversial' doesn't apply beyond referring to people simply because the example given in the guideline is a reference to 'an individual', and that this part of the guideline should probably be reworded." So what should be changed is "an individual"; it should be changed to "an individual or topic." I'm not looking to debate this, though. Either it's added or it isn't. When it comes to this guideline (as a whole), it's not unusual for editors to argue that so and so doesn't apply simply because a word, or every possible example, isn't included, as if this guideline is supposed to be some exhaustive list. And the vast majority of editors (especially when more than just the locals get involved via contacting one or more noticeboards and/or various WikiProjects) reject that gaming the system/wikilawyering tactic each time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Battling cancer
I don't think this needs to be mentioned explicitly on this page, but a "battle with cancer" is a euphemism and shouldn't be used. If anyone's interested in undertaking a quest, the phrase "battle with cancer" appears in almost two thousand articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many possible ways to re-write these sentences, including "was diagnosed with cancer", "was treated for cancer", "had cancer", "died of cancer", etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, battling seems to sum things up fairly well. You may well be diagnosed and treated by medical staff (and if you think about it for a moment you'll realise that if you've died then you're not battling anymore), but the battle is a personal one.  The sufferer is the one dealing with the side effects of chemo, radio, and various drugs.  The suffer is the one trying to maintain a mental and emotional level.  Yes it is a battle, sometimes successful, sometimes doomed from the outset but just as in a battle if the victim gives up all is over rather quicker.  Perhaps you've been lucky enough not to experience at first or second hand the effects of cancer, otherwise you would know that "battle" and "fight" are not euphemisms but brutal reality. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What about people battling mental illness, HIV, and racism? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Or struggling with reality? &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Must we drag Trump into  everything? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 09:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Followup: From a fabric softener ad recently come to my attention, I learn that some are battling sensitive skin. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be euphemistic, but the imagery of battling sickness is a prevalent one, well beyond just use of the word "battling". We talk about "fighting an infection", "grappling with a diagnosis", etc., in general, when discussing health struggles ("struggles"!). While I understand the concern that was raised, the alternatives "diagnosed" or "had" don't convey the ongoing physical/mental/emotional toll on someone who dealt over the long term with a particularly serious or virulent or difficult diagnosis; they are so neutral that they could apply to a years-long fight with leukemia that involved multiple remissions as much as they apply to a suspicious mole. The use of "treated for" is a little better, but has similar issues--if that person with the suspicious mole has it removed and biopsied, they were also "treated" for cancer. If we removed the use of conflict imagery, it seems to me that we'd still have to find something else that managed to convey the nuances of different cases. Grandpallama (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether you perceive battle-related imagery as being prevalent image or not depends on your culture. Americans are more likely use the "fighting" imagery than other countries.  (This is not surprising:  "fighting" fits better into the individualistic cultural view, and it lets us blame the victims for failing the treatment, instead of the blaming the treatment for failing the patient.)  Other cultures prefer "journey" related imagery.  Others take other approaches.  If this is a subject that interests you, then I recommend reading Sontag's famous essay on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's certainly true that not everyone with cancer is batting it, or sees themselves as battling it. It's not a one-size-fits-all phrase; in some cases it's inappropriate, in others it's not. Le v ! v ich 06:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, do you have any thoughts about what sort of language we could use to convey the appropriate sense of an ongoing, or difficult, or long-term struggle with it? The point you make about cultural attitudes is interesting, and I'm not disagreeing with you so much as expressing puzzlement about how we would communicate the intended meaning without that sort of battle language. Keeping your culture argument in mind, I think most Americans would probably reject "journey" or "endure" language because it has a passive sound to it, and someone aggressively pursuing chemo/radiation/whatever is actively engaged. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd first suggest that you consider whether that's truly the intended meaning, or if it might be mindless use of a trite phrase. A remarkable number of us develop all sorts of virtues when we die that surprise the people who were dealing with us everyday.  You can spend all day crying about your unlucky fate, but when you die, someone will say that you were a model of courage and fortitude.  It's not meant to describe reality.  It's meant to make the survivors feel better.
 * In the UK, I read that the journey language is typical throughout. In the context of American cancer patients, we tend to switch to the "journey" language when curative treatment ends.  People don't "battle" cancer in hospice care (although they might battle fear, family members, etc.).
 * I don't think that anyone who has endured a difficult situation would describe that as a passive activity, and if your travel is passive, then you might be doing it wrong.     WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But I'm still not clear on what we'd put in its place. The language of "endurance" conveys its own nuances, which are different from "battling." It would be just replacing one approach with another. And "endurance", I'd argue, does convey a more passive sense than battling, which conveys active opposition. My overall point is still that if we remove this, we still have to use something there. Grandpallama (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about "He had cancer for three years before he died"? Or "He died of cancer"?  It is rare that someone is notable for their reaction to a life-threatening disease.  If they publicly adopt a "cancer warrior" identity, then that's one thing, but that's not really common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not euphemistic. A "euphemism" is a mild word used to describe a harsh reality. "Battle" isn't a mild word. It's not even a metaphor; the word "battle" directly applies to someone's fight against an illness. "Battle" (verb) is defined as "to fight or struggle tenaciously to achieve or resist something". Someone battling cancer, mental illness, HIV, or racism, is fighting or struggling tenaciously to achieve or resist something. Le v ! v ich 16:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Euphemism may have been the wrong word but the point intended remains valid. It is not neutral. It makes a judgement call regarding state of mind. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Battle" doesn't make a judgment; the word describes a state of mind. Not everyone with cancer has that state of mind, but some (and I think many?) do. For example, both my parents battled cancer (and that's a description from a percipient witness, not just after-the-fact nostalgia). When they underwent painful treatments with side effects that nearly killed them, when they decided to remove major parts of their bodies, multiple times, in order to save their lives, I would characterize that as "struggling tenaciously to resist something", i.e., the dictionary definition of "battle". My father died after a battle with cancer; my mother survived her battle with cancer; that's not euphemism or judgment, it's simply a description of what happened. Not everyone battles cancer, but some do. Le v ! v ich 16:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking about the older generations in my [American] family, I don't think that any of the ones who had cancer thought of themselves as cancer warriors. Nobody with heart disease talked about "battling" heart disease either.  There were moments that could be described as "fighting", but many more moments that weren't.  When I took a quick look around for a couple of obituaries online, sure enough, one of them was described as having "battled cancer".  I remember him as seeming mostly sorry for himself.  (To be fair to him, it did seem like if anything could go wrong for him, then it did.)  There wasn't much fight left in him even before he developed cancer, and he slogged through the typical treatments, but when he came down on the unlucky side of the survival statistics after just a few months, someone posthumously applied the military metaphor to him anyway.
 * He was about 60 years old. Maybe it's a difference in age?  If you get cancer when you're young (or possibly worse, if you have young children), then I imagine that all-out war might be an understatement.  But when you're older (the median cancer patient is around age 70, and the highest rate is people in their 80s), and you have seen enough people die that you know that attitude isn't everything, and you have developed a more nuanced view on the relative value of life extension vs life enjoyment, then maybe having your own individual war on cancer sounds less like a good idea and more like a campaign slogan from an untrustworthy politician. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolute crap. You must be very young.  When you've grown up a bit you may realise that people in their 60s and 70s don't just lie down and await death.  I can assure you that if you are unlucky enough to develop cancer in a few decades time you will want to fight it, even if that means accepting some restrictions in your former abilities. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe not everyone is like you?  (My own hair has been gray for decades.  In 'a few decades', I realistically expect to be dead.)
 * People in their 60s may be up for the battle. People in their 80s – hmm, I think it depends on a lot of other factors.  Comorbidities make the calculation a lot more complicated.  A treatment that offers a year of terrible side effects in return for a couple of months might or might not sound appealing.  We stop some kinds of cancer screening because elderly patients are more likely to die from the treatment than from the disease.  Watchful waiting isn't "battling cancer", and it's sometimes the most medically sound approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: use the word 'regime' for the Belarusian government
In and,  insists that it is acceptable in the en.Wikipedia to use the word "regime" to describe a particular government that happens to be brutally oppressing its citizens. To focus this discussion, I've made it into an informal proposal. Please add Support or Oppose with reasons based on Wikipedia guidelines and policy.

Proposal: the word "regime" is to be accepted as non-weaselly and may be used in the article 2020 Belarusian protests and other similar articles in which a government oppresses its citizens and the citizens try to change their government. Boud (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (proposer, but I'm not the person who wants the proposal) - based on the guideline WP:WEASEL. There is overwhelming evidence that Western mainstream media use the word "regime" to mean "a government that we don't like right at this particular moment". There is too little evidence to justify that the protestors in this particular case wish to change the general form of government (another sense of the word "regime") compared to any other protests around the world, and the usage for that political science meaning would have to be unambiguous and justified by sources. Boud (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we had a consistent policy to allow and encourage the use of the word "regime" to describe groups opposed to existing forms of governments, so that protests "against the US regime", "against the French regime", "against the Kaczyński regime", "against the Johnson regime", were accepted, I wouldn't really object. But the policy would have to be consistent. My opposition right now is that I see no point in proposing a policy likely to be overwhelmingly opposed, especially since many Wikipedians are confused about the difference between neutrality and WP:NPOV. Boud (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Not only is it a very loaded term, but large sections of the protest movement are only protesting against Lukashenko himself, not against the 'regime' (system of societal organization) in the country. Goodposts (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: remove 'noted' from list of words to watch
I believe that the word "noted" shouldn't be on the list of non-neutral words under "synonyms for said". I checked dictionary.com and it apparently just means "to make particular mention of in a writing". Thus, if we say "The professor also noted that…", it just means that he wrote it, and nothing more. I'm convinced that most people don't use the word "note" to imply anything non-neutral.Martinthewriter (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ...and you call yourself a writer? :-) I think "noted" implies that the thing noted is true. For example, compare:,   The first is neutral; the second implies it's false; the third implies it's true. Lev!vich 17:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On one hand I would appreciate having more easily-understood synonyms for "said" and "stated", which get quite repetitive yet difficult to replace when one attempts to underline that a row of statements are to be taken only as something exclaimed by a perticular individual or institution, not as objective fact. On the other, "noted" can still be used to imply that the thing being noted is objectively true, and the person/organization in question is merely taking note of it's objective truth. The lack of a distinction between the two does make the term problematic, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Goodposts (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodposts, sometimes you can use "wrote", if the communication happened in writing.
 * I am not a fan of stated myself. It sounds more definite and perhaps aggressive than a simple said.  "She said that she doesn't eat meat" doesn't feel the same as "She stated that she doesn't eat meat". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted implies it's true, and thus it should be used sparingly with that meaning in mind. It should stay listed. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding 'argued' to WP:SAY
I've noticed some people replacing "said" with "argued" (and somehow citing WP:SAY / WP:CLAIM for this change.) To say that someone "argued" something implies that it is controversial and that their assertion is not widely accepted; it presents their statement as part of an implicit back-and-forth, even if there is no one actually "arguing" with them on the point. Therefore I feel it ought to be generally avoided per WP:SAY unless the source unambiguously presents their position as part of a running argument with another party. "Doctor X said that the treatment was widely effective..." is a neutral way to present them as making a statement of their beliefs according to their expertise. "Doctor X argued the treatment was widely effective..." is clearly not, unless there is something in the source that specifically makes it out to be an argument. --Aquillion (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In scholarly writing, argue means to make a case for (or against) something. There does not have to be a running dispute between two or more sides for the term argue to be accurate. Replacing argue with said in these cases would actually be incorrect or misleading, as it would imply that the source is merely making an unsubstantiated claim, rather than making a case for it. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Using argue is fine. I use it without any issue, and so do many other editors. I'm against adding it to this guideline. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Revolutionary
Fuzheado, regarding this and this? Let's hope people keep the other senses of revolutionary in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential addition: language around those with mental health conditions
This idea came from this diff from an IP that adjusted wording on article to improve language that was related to how to relate to people broadly that had mental health issues like eliminating the word "suffering from". This seems completely reasonable (outside of direct quotes of course) and I'm sure there's other variants of that that we should avoid in general that we could see as demeaning to anyone with mental other psychological conditions. I just don't know how to phrase it better or what other phrases could come into play that should be avoided. --M asem (t) 16:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have guidance on this at Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. To your point, especially see the current last bullet point in that section. If consensus is for it, we could somehow direct editors to that section in this guideline. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A "See also" link would be sufficient I think. I'll be bold and add that. --M asem (t) 21:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Re:MOS:TERRORIST
There is a user that has been removing the label of "terrorist" from pages such as Symbionese Liberation Army and Donald DeFreeze. As I understand it, this policy comes with the following note: "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly."

The entities that I am referring to are referred to as terrorists by entities such as the FBI and the New York Times. Yet this user is removing the label of "terrorist" from these pages because they want an in text citation directly quote a source that calls these groups/people "terrorist". This seems to be like a case of being unable to write that the sky is blue without a reference.

Can I get community input as to whether or not this policy is being applied properly in these cases? Transcendence (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I sympathize with your argument that calling SLA "terrorists" is WP:BLUESKY, but because of the old terrorist-v-freedom-fighters debate, the global consensus, and WTW guideline, is to require in-text attribution, even for Al Qaeda. That brings us to another age-old question, which is when "terrorist" is in an article without in-text attribution, is the right move to (a) remove it, or (b) add the in-text attribution. I think (b) is better, particularly for obvious cases such as SLA. Nevertheless, I think (a) is still within policy. The "remove or improve" debate is an old and common one (it's going on now with Daily Mail deprecation, for example); I think improve is better but remove is allowed. Lev!vich 20:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The claim that I am removing the label of "terrorist" from these pages is thus demonstrably false. After rewording for NPOV, I removed the unattributed addition of terrorist (with an edit summary showing the editor concerned hadn't even read MOS:TERRORIST) to Symbionese Liberation Army. I then moved (and yes that's moved, not removed) the attributed addition out of the lead, since per WP:LEAD the lead summarises the article. As my edit summary for the move shows I wasn't even happy with where I put the information in the article, since there's nowhere particularly good for it to go. But I left it in the article anyway, despite that. Go figure. FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim is demonstrably true, you removed it from not once, not twice, but three times. You also removed it from Donald DeFreeze. I assume you've also done that to other pages. Transcendence (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed the unattributed (and often unreferenced) claim per WP:NPOV and MOS:TERRORIST. It's not my fault certain editors can't follow basic policies and/or guidelines is it? FDW777 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You literally said you didn't remove the label and now you are saying you did. Which is it? Transcendence (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm removing it from the SLA article, why is it still in the article? Why has it been in the article since 07:43, 14 October 2020‎, despite your first post here being at 02:25, 16 October 2020? Why did you add it without in-text attribution when mentioning a guideline that explicitly says you need to do just that? FDW777 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That one instance does not erase the rest that you admitted to. Transcendence (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , unless I'm seriously bad at counting there were 5 inline citations (directly behind the word terrorist) all of which called them terrorists in the article at the moment of this revert. How is that an unattributed addition? Asartea   Trick  undefined  Treat  14:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being referenced doesn't mean it's attributed. The guideline says unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution (my emphasis). There was no in-text attribution. FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the OP's editing at David Gilbert (activist) here is worth mentioning, since they change the sentence is an American radical who is currently serving a 75 year-to-life sentence for murder to read is an American convicted murderer who is currently serving a 75 year-to-life sentence for murder. Surely it must be possible to squeeze in a few more mentions of him being convicted of murder to the first sentence? FDW777 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That change is something Ive argued a lot about on many topics (mostly people and groups on the far- and alt-right), namely which down to the basic fact that the first sentence of the lede should be describing what something objectively is in as neutral and impartial a tone as possible before moving onto what something is characterized as by sources if that's what they are more notable for. There are certainly people who are only notable for having done one crime (nothing significantly notable before that), get convicted, and end up as life prisoners, and that would be a rare case of using ".. is a convicted felon/murderer" etc. if that's the only thing we can use. But in the case of Gilbert he appears to have notable activities before being convicted in 1987, so to make that the focus of the lede sentence is inappropriate. His conviction clearly should be in the second or third sentence in the lede - that's also something he's notable for but the tone of the article is drastically affected by throwing that first before explaining his activism prior to that. --M asem (t) 22:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The placement is obviously open to discussion. However since the first sentence already said currently serving a 75 year-to-life sentence for murder that would, by definition, make him a convicted murderer, so there was no need for the absurd tautological construction to be added. FDW777 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this even relevant to this discussion? This seems like an attempt to discredit me if anything. Transcendence (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you attempt to portray yourself as someone attempting to uphold neutrality on articles relating to left-wing militants, it's quite relevant. FDW777 (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On this page, portrayals of editors are not relevant. Lev!vich 07:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but I refer you to the OP's first post, where they personalise the dispute twice. FDW777 (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. "There is a user ..." is not the best way to begin a content discussion. :-) Lev!vich 07:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you admit it isn't relevant to this discussion. You only included it to discredit me. Transcendence (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't help it if your editing discredits you. FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to take this opportunity to note that their incivility has been their tone since their very first interaction that they initiated with me. Transcendence (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Article titles

While framed in terms of article title policy, this is also a MOS:BIO and MOS:WTW matter, since the article text will have to agree with the title. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Vicissitude(s)"
Is the word "vicissitude(s)" problematic and discouraged by this guideline? Or is it just a touch too formal? Perhaps the easiest way to answer this is to ask if using "ups and downs" is a problem, since the terms are synonymous. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * *I don't see anything wrong with the word in itself, other than that it is a bit recondite. It has no difficult 'overtones'. OK perhaps in the text of an article but maybe to be avoided in headers if there is an alternative.--Smerus (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Add to euphemisms: “battle with cancer”
Is this term used commonly enough to consider for inclusion in euphemisms, as in “she lost her battle with cancer”, or “he died after a long battle with cancer”? Toby64 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See WT:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 9. --Izno (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is "infamous" a word that should be used in Wikipedia's voice?
The source of this question is this discussion: White Flag Trade Infamous

I don't think "infamous" is a word that should be used as matter-of-fact in Wikipedia's voice. It's opinion-based for sure. I have no problem with it being quoted and attributed. What say you, everyone else? Dennis Osmosis (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WTW is not an exclusive list of words one editor wants to stop another using. Reread the lead, then take this to the article's talk page.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tragedy struck
What is the opinion on the use of phrase "tragedy struck" as for example in 1880 United States presidential election: Does this fall under the header of editorializing and should it be avoided? To me it comes across as overly dramatic and therefore unencyclopedic. In the above example it can simple be removed without the sentence losing any meaning (which I did). There are almost 1,000 articles containing this phrase.--Wolbo (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

POVFIGHTER
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing. Summary: A provision has been added to WP:TE that appears to have implications for this page and editorial activity relating to it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Even"
Starting a talk page discussion following Peter Gulutzan's revert of my addition of "even" to the "Editorializing" section. I have run into it being used improperly a few times and am always surprised it's not in this list, so I figured I'd be bold and add it. The most recent instance I ran into in the wild was at Rudy Giuliani, in the section about him testing positive for COVID-19:

In my view this is very similar to other examples in the list, in that it adds some judgment to the sentence suggesting this was unreasonable or shocking (which it is, in my view, but that's my view and not something I would put in an encyclopedia article without strong sourcing and most likely attribution). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement in the Rudy Giulani article "and requested that others remove their masks" is poorly sourced even if "even" is removed, he asked one (1) person "“Would you be comfortable taking your mask off some people can hear you?” apparently. Oxford say says even is "used to emphasize something surprising or extreme" and Merriam-Webster says even is used as an intensive to stress an extreme or highly unlikely condition or instance". Thus what we're really talking about is emphasis and stress, and not that something is "contrary to expectations". I've already used the word in such a sense in my first sentence, and another authority is the guy who sang "even the Jordan river has bodies floatin". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think even is a problem in the given example. If we are to construe judgment from putting even there, are we not to also construe judgment from the inclusion of this event at all? If we are getting that particular about inferring judgment, should editors find another source that explicitly lays out why this is important, or should we expect readers to have a basic understanding of the use of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19? — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GorillaWarfare; the sentence means the same thing without. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality puffery
Many articles about foods qualify ingredients as "pure", "fresh", or "virgin". Though high-quality ingredients no doubt improve the quality of the food, they are not a defining characteristic. A salad made with cheap olive oil is not as good as a salad made with extra-virgin olive oil, but it is still a salad. These terms are fine for cookbooks, but Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and shouldn't be indulging in this sort of ingredient puffery. Ideas about how to add that to this MOS article? --Macrakis (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples of Wikipedia articles misusing pure + fresh + virgin? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fresh" is reasonably used to distinguish from canned (e.g. tomatoes) or dried (e.g. herbs) or frozen ingredients, but it is used redundantly in many cases:
 * Uruguayan cuisine: "Uruguayan food always comes with fresh bread" -- as opposed to stale? (there are cuisines that serve dried bread, but that's not mentioned in this article)
 * Open sandwich -- "An open sandwich is a slice of fresh bread..." -- does that mean "not stale"? "not toasted"? (which would be incorrect; there's a photo showing an open sandwich on toast in the article!)
 * Jeff Hertzberg -- "making it convenient for home cooks to bake fresh bread daily" -- I've never heard of anyone baking stale bread. Maybe what is meant here is "to bake bread fresh daily", but that is pleonastic
 * Éisleker Ham
 * Hungarian cuisine: "These accompanied with bread and fresh vegetables" -- if this means raw vegetables (crudités), it should say so more explicitly; if it just means good-quality vegetables, it is a peacock term; though it is arguably contrasting with pickles, discussed in the next paragraph
 * Characterizing olive oil as virgin or extra virgin, in, for example, pesto, occhi di lupo, zuppa toscana, pizza marinara. I'm sure that the result is better if using a better-quality oil (which is why recipes might specify extra-virgin oil), but "virgin" is not a defining characteristic of the dishes. A random search finds, for example, that "Classico" brand pesto specifies just "olive oil" on the label., so it is possible to make pesto (maybe not very good pesto) without using extra-virgin oil.
 * These are just some quick examples found with Google search. --Macrakis (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I was at it, I fixed some egregious cases of peacock "pure", e.g., "made with pure cane sugar". --Macrakis (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you and these should be fixed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Commit" suicide
Is the word commit neutral? If not, should the term "commit suicide" be disallowed for violating NPOV? This question is carried over from the wider discussion at the RfC on the same topic at the Village pump, and Talk:Robin Williams. While there are many agencies and professional organizations which recommend against the term, I believe we should start by evaluating its definition.

Definitions of commit

 * American Heritage Dictionary
 * Lexico
 * Merriam-Webster
 * Chambers
 * Dictionary.com

Definitions of commit suicide

 * Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Dictionary usage notes

 * Dictionary.com, "suicide"
 * American Heritage Dictionary (interview), "commit suicide", etc.

Lexicographers

 * American Dialect Society 2017 words of the year: die by suicide

Feel free to add other dictionaries. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please consider the above post a detailed invitation to participate at the RfC. I would appreciate input at WP:VPP. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"official"
I'm not sure what section this word belongs in, but it always strikes me as rather amateurish and unencyclopedic. It has elements of puffery, unsupported attribution and unspecified places or events. I'm thinking of phrases like "the United Kingdom officially adopted the metric system", "Sir Robert Walpole was the first official Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", "Pluto is officially no longer a planet" etc. Who are the "officials" who "officially" make these declarations? I think the word should be mentioned under one of these sections. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Some of those cases are appropriate; some are not:
 * "officially adopted the metric system" -- implies that it was sometimes used before, but that this was codified in law or regulations. "Officially" seems OK here, though something like "the UK codified the usage of the metric system in 19XX" would be better.
 * "the first official Prime Minister of the UK" -- I think what this is trying to say is that the post did not exist previously, which makes the word "officially" redundant.
 * "Pluto is no longer officially a planet" -- Depending on the context, would be better to say explicitly something like "Since 2006, Pluto has not satisfied the IAU's definition of a planet".
 * More:
 * "The PRC officially recognizes 55 ethnic minority groups" -- seems fine, assuming that the notion of "recognizing" has been defined.
 * "Saudi Arabia, officially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" -- seems fine
 * Treaty of San Francisco uses "officially" multiple times in various unclear ways; I have edited it to improve it
 * So I guess I agree that "official" is a "word to watch", in the sense that the claim can usually be made more explicit and clear with other language. --Macrakis (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to add that these points here are very similar and relevant to the points below on "conspiracy theory" as a value-laden contentious label. I agree with MaxBrowne2 that using "official" can indeed be constitute puffery, and can be used as a rhetoric trick to make something seen as the only correct and acceptable thing. There are situations where we can use the word fairly, for an example, when writing about the (official) mottos or anthems for countries. I think it would be the right thing to add "official" to the list of words to watch, with a few notes on acceptable usage. Lukan27 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hate speech/genocidal terminology in the Horn of Africa
I started a talk page section at Timeline of the Tigray War warning about the frequent use of eliminate by Ethiopian News Agency. Possibly the best background article documenting hate speech/genocideal terminology in the Ethiopian context is The ethnification of the Ethiopian media, currently ref 3 in Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia. was wondering if there's a better place than that talk page to collect discussion on the issue. My feeling is that having a specific page could be useful, especially since there's going to be a mix of English words and local-origin words such as Neftenya, which will not be relevant to world-wide hate speech contexts.

So I propose creating Manual of Style/Words to watch/Horn of Africa. Any objections or better suggestions?

Hopefully, more and more people who are from the Horn of Africa, either living there or diaspora, will constructively edit en.Wikipedia articles related to the region, which is a sensitive topic. It's not someone's fault if s/he picks up language used by others without realising the connotations - or if different people/groups interpret words differently. The new page and its talk page would help people learn both from external sources and from Wikipedians' perceptions of the words and reach consensus on terminology.

One major peace researcher currently in the Tigray mountains, Mulugeta Gebrehiwot, says (27 January 2021) that the current Tigray War is "genocide by decree", so any propagation of hate speech risks not only creating difficult editing disputes, but also having real-world consequences. Boud (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Genocide would be very unfortunate if that is really happening, but if so who are we insinuating would have "decreed" it? Some have thrown the forsekin at the feet of the current government but that is hard to accept and should be taken as typical political talk when people say anything. Behavior on front lines is not always decreed by anyone, unfortunately. And disagreements about deciding here, what word is or isnt to be categorized as hate speech in English from now on can lead you down a real rabbit hole. KZebegna (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia guidelines and policies start out from proposals and discussions - their strength of their application develops (or weakens) with time and as consensus builds up (or dissolves). So "deciding" is appropriate, but in the Usenet/Debian/GNU/Linux/Indymedia/Wikipedia sense of proposal and arguments/evidence for/against and gradual build-up of consensus. So a "rabbit hole", maybe, but the alternative is to contribute to stage four of Stanton's model of genocide. Boud (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Change LABEL to match practice
Currently, MOS:LABEL reads Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. As written, there is no option to use a contentious label in Wikivoice (except for "pseudoscience", for which there is a specific cutout). However, in practice, we do use contentious labels in Wikivoice, especially when they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject.

Some examples:


 * Richard Spencer is described as an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist in the very first sentence of his article. Similarly we describe David Duke as an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, far-right politician, convicted felon, and former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Don Black (white supremacist) as an American white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, and Klansman, and Stormfront (website) as a pan-European white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site.
 * In our article on Jonestown, we describe the Peoples Temple as a a San Francisco-based cult under the leadership of Jim Jones. We also describe Jim Jones, in his own article, as a cult leader. Oddly, in the article on the Peoples Temple itself, we avoid describing it as a cult in Wikivoice, instead saying that it is widely regarded by scholars and by popular view as a cult. But since that doesn't attribute the cult designation to any particular source, that doesn't avoid the violation of MOS:LABEL and in fact makes it a violation of MOS:WEASEL.
 * David Icke is described as an English conspiracy theorist, in a good article. Similarly Alex Jones is described as an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist.
 * Focus on the Family is described as an American fundamentalist Christian organization. Similarly the Family Research Council is described as an American fundamentalist Protestant activist group. ("Fundamentalist" is described in MOS:LABEL as a LABEL.)
 * Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is described as a conspiracy theory in the title and as a a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory in the text. Similarly the Moon landing conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and all sorts of other conspiracy theories are described as conspiracy theories in the title of the article. It appears to be unofficial Wikipedia policy to put "conspiracy theory" in the titles of pages about conspiracy theories.

Because the way we actually use contentious labels is different from what MOS:LABEL recommends, we should delete the clause in which case use in-text attribution from MOS:LABEL and just allow people to use contentious labels even in Wikivoice if they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. We should reserve in-text attribution for these labels for if they are not used widely by reliable sources but we do have one or two that do use the contentious label. Loki (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the long discussion at WP:VPP, using value-laden labels in wikivoice is a problem and difficult to correct. While you can find numerous examples, this is a recent (last few years) problem that numerous editors have pointed out and have been trying to address. How to correct is unclear (whether it is a policy or an editing behavior change), but I think its clear that there is some consensus that the current approach of LABEL still holds, that we shouldn't be using these labels in Wikivoice except in extraneous circumstances. --M asem (t) 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Masem, you know full well that the consensus you imply does not exist, at least for some of the terms you have tried to remove from wikivoice, since you have argued unsuccessfully for it on numerous occassions. It is absolutely not a violation of WP:LABEL to eg. accurately describe someone as a white supremacist, far-left, or far-right in situations where they are described so academically and there is no serious disagreement about this among the sources; doing so is a simple statement of uncontroversial fact, not a value judgement, and trying to ban such references would clearly violate WP:NOTCENSORED. If you believe you could produce a consensus otherwise you can try to add the words you object to to the list of examples, but I think it's reasonably clear you would not succeed given your repeated failures to press this argument elsewhere and the extensive list of examples showing that your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:LABEL does not reflect current practice. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a number of editors supported Masem's POV. The hard part was crafting a policy to improve on things.  Masem didn't say, "labels can never be used" but the concern was how often and the degree to which articles were relying on telling vs showing and how often an article would start off with a subjective, value laden label instead of an objective description.  Springee (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors exist that support Masem's interpretation, but (as you concede below) they have consistently failed to change current practice or demonstrate a consensus backing their interpretation, so it's important that Masem not present his interpretation as if it's accepted practice or common reading of WP:LABEL. It clearly is not. (And I'm saying this - and took the time to correct him - because I've noticed that he has a tendency to present his interpretation as straightforward and uncontroversial despite that, to the point of almost WP:DEADHORSE / WP:IDHT levels.  It's fine for editors to have an ideosyncratic interpretation of policy; it's not fine to repeatedly act like your interpretation is commonly-accepted when it plainly is not, since that could confuse editors who haven't been following the dispute closely.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In part because I do not know a precise change to policy or guideline that is needed that would immediately resolve the matter; I've explained several times the matter is also coupled with the issues of how NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM is handled, among other P&G. There is no simple singular P&G change because as they presently read, in whole, take multiple different interpretations based on the past discussion, so this also points to the fact that a simple change of P&G won't "fix" the issue. Its a matter that requires a wider array of voices beyond the relatively closed loop around NPOV/N and BLP/N. And the point is that I'm not alone in my view, though I know it's not a clear majority view or even necessarily a majority - but neither is the view that we present labels as facts to the point we can say that view is site-wide consensus to change this policy. It remains an issue that is extremely difficult to resolve particularly in the current climate of external events and not one to try to push to resolve for a least a few months. Hence my opposition to changing this without seeking that consensus. --M asem (t) 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The change that would be needed to make your position tenable would require revising WP:NPOV, which currently requires that we accurately follow the sources. This will always trump WP:LABEL when the two come into conflict. Note that NPOV is not subject to consensus - changing it in a way that would permit us to censor or tone down the sources based on an editor's feelings that their conclusions are in some vague sense "value-laden" is not possible. There is some room in the margins to debate about the exact threshold of sourcing necessary, especially for WP:EXCEPTIONAL things - I don't think anyone disagrees that the threshold needed to call someone a white supremacist in the article voice is very high - but there will always be cases where we are not merely permitted but required to eg. accurately describe someone as a white supremacist in the article voice, and nothing you do or say can change that, fullstop, since the commitment to accurately reflecting the sources is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, while WP:LABEL is just a style guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV already has wording under WP:YESPOV that says we are not slaves nor blind to possible bias with RSes; when statements are about contestable information, we should not present them as facts but as attributed claims. A key point of debate essentially has been whether claims of value-laden labels being applied to a person/entity by multiple RSes should or should not be considered contestable (the difference between WP:OUTRAGE v. WP:SPADE), given that we are supposed to be impartial and dispassionate in tone. And I don't think we have a good resolution on that, nor how to make that change in policy either direction. (But importantly UNDUE does say regardless, the use of a value-laden label or similar opinion/statement by multiple RSes shouldn't be ignored and should be included, just whether in or out of wikivoice is the issue). --M asem  (t) 19:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking about it overnight, I do have one compromise that might allow you to make those claims in wikivoice less common (though I don't think you can ever forbid them entirely for the reasons I outlined.) Currently, if we have a massive number of high-quality sources saying something in the body, and someone adds it to the lead saying "X is widely described by sources as...", someone will usually object unless we have a source outright saying they're generally described that way, saying that this is WP:SYNTH.  I don't think this always is a proper objection; the lead is supposed to summarize the body, which includes, in some cases, broadly summarizing the opinions it covers in that way. More importantly, by taking those summaries off the table, editors are forced to choose between "X is a white supremacist" (which accurately reflects those sources), "According to A, X is a white supremacist" for the best source Y (which sharply downplays the sources by failing to properly summarize the unanimity with which they're described), or "According to A, B, C, D..." which is clunky and still has the same problem. If you force editors into that choice - in a situation where there's little doubt, given the sourcing, that the descriptor in question is objectively accurate, at least as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned - then most of them are going to go for the first option. I think that in cases where the coverage is unanimous or near-unanimous, even the compromise summary wording is still a problem, but having it unavailable sharply increases the chance that users will just go for stating it as fact in wikivoice. --Aquillion (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly many editors also disagreed with Masem's position in the discussion linked above. I will quote something I said in that discussion, which I believe raises a couple of the salient points: Perhaps, Masem, you believe that if everyone including the BLP subject understands that subject to inhabit a contentious identity, like being a flat-earth advocate, that WP must nevertheless attribute that characterization because being a flat-earth advocate is taking a controversial position. If so, this seems to me to be a complete misreading of LABEL, which is intended to cover situations where the labels themselves are contested, not ones where everyone can agree that a categorization applies but some are for and others agin' the position categorized (emphasis added).
 * In other words, we shouldn't assume that a label is contentious just because the identity the label applies to is contentious. If somebody promotes flat-earth theory, and sources agree that that is what they are doing, then they are a "flat-earth promoter". We don't - and shouldn't- unnecessarily attribute labels that are objectively confirmed by the consensus of high-quality reliable sources, particularly where the label's applicability is not itself subject to contention. Where the dispute, rather than the label, is "value-laden" - is the earth flat, are we really ruled by reptoids - it is purest FALSEBALANCE to insist that the relevant labels not be presented in wikivoice. They represent objective (social) facts, even though people also have feelings about them. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Things like "flat earth promoter" however aren't quite "value-laden", as either they have stated they believe in the flat-earth theory. It's not subjective, in contrast to something like what the definition of far-right is, or where "climate change skeptic" stops and becomes "climate change denier". The problem on value-laden labels is the lack of objective bounds for inclusion. There may be some universal agreement to a core definition- a person that regularly regurgitates hatred and violence toward blacks would certainly likely be called a "white supremacist" barring anything else, but then you get edge cases of people that may speak of distrust and concern of blacks but not outright fear or violence that get labeled that because their words appear racist and get pidgeonholed. --M asem (t) 19:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, in all Loki's list of examples at the beginning of the article, the only one I see as subjective in the sense you mean, where it is currently used, is "cult". All of the others - including "white nationalist" - appear to me to be verifiable and are in fact demonstrated in the articles the OP points to. This is why I object to the framing of the question - I think it assumes an erroneous reading of WP:LABEL. (Of course, I have of course seen "LABEL creep" where people try to misapply the principle, as in the frequent objections to noting Carl Benjamin's antifeminism even though the feature of his career that has most frequently been noted by RS and, indeed, is usually given as the major reason for his "popularity".) Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of those labels Loki used have a "core" definition that I'd agree is routinely objective, but in application in the media have very diffuse edge definitions that depend where the writer is coming from and the topic they are covering. Further, barring any self-identification, nearly all labels are based on assumptions from reviewing a person or groups' actions and words, which can mischaracterize a person/groups' intent (of course, we also have cases where the external characterization is more reflective of what most of the world considered that person/group compared to the false reality that the person/group might try to present). Fundamentally, the whole point of labels is that there is zero objective measure we can use to assess them, compared to objectively-sound statements like "The sky is blue" or "Trump is the 45h US President". The only way labels can become objective is through self-claims, or with the passage of time and their use from far-removed, dispassionate RSes (eg academic works years after events) and even here, we'd be careful. And like for any other subjective statement, it should be out of wikivoice and attributed, even if the subjective statement is backed by dozens of RSes. --M asem (t) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you are saying, particularly the passage of time ... and even then, out of Wikivoice and attributed is not actually what we do on WP (viz. "antisemitism" and the NAZI party) nor is it backed by policy; in fact, it seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE by requiring attribution for objective facts about which all RS agree.
 * On the other hand, perhaps we could start by carving out the cases where self-identification and RS characterization coincide as being non-"contentious" and excluded from LABEL. That would at least be a beginning. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But this still comes down to what is subjective. Just because every major RS agrees on a subjective conclusion does not make it objective as it remains unprovable. It simply is a common subjective conclusion. We do this all the time in the other direction when the subjective aspect is positive - We don't say "Casablanca is one of the greatest films" but "...is considered one of the greatest films", for example. That's why it is important to recognize that NPOV's YESPOV' caution is not just about contentious statements (when we know there's other expressed doubt in RSes) but contestable statements - things that cannot be proven out objectively. Labels, without self-identification or without the dispassionate scholarly analysis that comes over time, are inherently contestable. --M asem (t) 20:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But that just isn't the way WP operates. It is not "contestible" that flat earth theory is "pseudoscience", that the NAZI party is "antisemitic" or that Focus on the Family is a "Christian fundamentalist" organization. Those are simply objective social facts, and do not rely on the subjects' self-identification or the passage of time in order to be true - and all of these judgments, like those provided by Loki as examples, have already passed any necessary amount of time, anyway: they are all attested to by high-quality (usually academic) RS. They are simply not in the same category as "Casablanca was the best movie ever" or "Stalin was an evil man". Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We can prove scientifically that the earth is not flat, so flat-earth can readily be called pseudoscience in wikivoice. We've had academic study of the Nazi party for decades to be able to attribute "antiseminism" to it in wikivoice. I don't know enoug on Focus on the Family but looking around and on their site as well as how "fundamentalist" is taken, that's subjective label given the vagueness of the meaning of "fundamental Christian" can mean (and which they also deny from what I can see), so we should not be promoting that as an objective statement (but that's barring the lack of finding any academic studies on the group given the group's age. (FWIW, the sources on our page that is used to support this, a link to the FotF site, does not support this claim, and is likely violating OR as making an interpretion of that source to fit the "fundamental Christian" definition). It's when we have a reasonable number of academic sources that appear well after an topic's predominate period in the news and use those assessments to state labels as facts, as those studys have no immediate interest in events long since past. The problem we have is in current articles using the media which are not academic sources and are not writing to be dispassionate about the topic as academics. Just because the media RS may all coalesce around the same label doesn't mean it is factually true because there's no standard of analysis here as you'd have with a scientific process or standard of academic study; it just means it is a popular opinion and one likely to be included per UNDUE. We have to remember that the media represents only a small fraction of voices on the planet, and while we'll consider them expert sources, they are not Word of God here. --M asem  (t) 21:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Re: It's when we have a reasonable number of academic sources that appear well after an topic's predominate period in the news and use those assessments to state labels as facts, as those studys have no immediate interest in events long since past (emphasis added) - I understand that you strongly believe all of this, but it isn't backed up by WP policy, particularly the part I bolded. And "Christian fundamentalism" has been an object of (rather good) scholarship for 100 years now, so the idea that the meaning of the term is vague or that its application cannot be demonstrated scientifically - in the relevant sense of humanist scholarship - just demonstrates your profound mistrust and misunderstanding of how the analysis of social and historical reality is actually performed. There are in fact professional standards for the characterization of individuals and organizations in academic work (and, for that matter, in professional journalism) - you just don't agree with the standards in question. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Re: David Icke, just for one. The lead of his article states He claims that an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings called the Archons (or Anunnaki) have hijacked the earth, and that a genetically modified human–Archon hybrid race of shape-shifting reptilians known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, the Illuminati, or the "elite", manipulate global events to help keep humans in constant fear, so the Archons can feed off the "negative energy" this creates. I have no doubt that is accurate, given the number of references. What other brief term could possibly describe those views? FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Best avoided" does not mean "must always be avoided." Additionally (and perhaps more importantly) there is reasonable disagreement among editors as to what is "contentious" or "value-laden".  When reliable sources universally describe an article's subject as a neo-nazi in a dispassionate tone, we naturally have to reflect that; in that case it is a simple objective statement of academic fact and not a value-laden judgment. More generally, we should be extremely cautious of anyone trying to expand WP:LABEL too far outside its listed terms - the problem is that any descriptor can be characterized as "controversial" and value-laden.  Someone could say eg. "some people loathe the Purple Party, so describing this person as a supporter of the Purple Party is a value-laden judgment and can't be done in the article text!"  This has actually been the case when editors argued, absurdly, that we cannot describe people as socialists in the article voice even if it uncontroversially applies because the term has emotive significance to them.  Similarly, people have argued that we cannot describe subjects as being far-left or far-right even in the most straightforward, academically uncontentious cases, because they personally have strong emotional associations with those words. That's not what WP:LABEL is for.  The key point is that it focuses on loaded language, ie. words that are specifically intended to sway the reader through emotional arguments.  If the words are used unemotionally in sources as objective fact, and we use them the same way, then they are not value-laden labels; WP:LABEL discourages unnecessarily emotive language, but (obviously) does not and cannot prohibit us from stating clearly-attested facts. In fact even if it flatly stated such it would have no force, since that would bring it into conflict with WP:NPOV, which states All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.  NPOV is a core policy, so it is not appropriate to use WP:LABEL to argue that a significant view can be downplayed or omitted simply because it involves terminology that an editor finds emotionally objectionable. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of this I agree with, but I have two objections:
 * First of all, yes, technically "best avoided" allows an out for exceptional cases. But it's not a very practical out. It doesn't give any details except the ones the rest of the sentence gives, and those details are, in my opinion, insufficient to cover the situations where a contentious label should be used.
 * Second, by the current wording of the paragraph, describing someone as a "neo-Nazi", a "conspiracy theorist", or a "terrorist", or an organization as a "cult" is always value-laden. The paragraph makes no reference to sourcing or context except to say that with widespread sourcing we might be able to include a label with attribution. This is why people have made those silly arguments: by the current wording of MOS:LABEL, they're right, which is why I want to change MOS:LABEL.
 * As for the rest, I agree that overall current policy supports the exceptions I listed above. The problem with just saying that is that adding a contentious label to a page, no matter how well-sourced, is currently a headache because, as you note, several people will jump in with MOS:LABEL as it currently reads, prompting a large argument about MOS:LABEL vs WP:NPOV. That WP:NPOV should and usually does win these arguments does not make them productive or useful. Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No change needed. Many of the examples given above are not value-laden in the sense the page is talking about. For example, calling Richard B. Spencer a neo-Nazi is not contentious or even inherently value-laden; it's just a fact. And so on with the rest of Loki's examples. (Maybe "fundamentalist" should be deleted as an example? I'm pretty sure this is used as a legitimate scholarly term like "pseudoscience".) The purpose of this guideline is so articles on certain people don't turn into unencyclopedically written attack pages; e.g., "X is a racist[1][2] and sexist[3][4]" where sources 1-4 are crappy opinion pieces and tabloid/clickbait media. Editors who hate X would claim that those sources and the lack of direct refutation by other sources (naturally, since they're crap) means that we just have to use those terms in WP:WIKIVOICE. We don't need to help tendentious editors. Crossroads -talk- 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Neo-Nazi" is not value laden but "anti-transgender activism" is obviously value laden? That seems...inconsistent. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its unfortunate that you don't see the difference. If you espouse agreement with the Nazi agenda, then you are a neo-Nazi. It's just a fact. Likewise, if you said you are a follower of Any Rand's Objectivism philosophy, that would make you an Objectivist (even if you didn't like being called that). But the argument "is an anti-transgender activist" is entirely value-laden and most often confused (ignoring various positional nuances), being a subjective assessment of someone's statements/writings and how well they align with to transgender civil-rights questions.  If you actually read the materials in question, you'll often find that the supposedly "anti-trans" materials are in fact pro-trans and pro-LGBTQ+ in general, but are concerned about about tensions with LGBTQ+, and especially certain legal definitional problems. One example: defining "gender" or "gender identity" or "gender expression" or etc. as  "sex" or "sexual identity" or whatever, rather than alongside sex as a separate protected class.  There are concerns that this definitional confusion, by dunderheaded legislators who don't really know what they're talking about, may in subtle ways undermine the civil rights of the L and G in LGBTQ+.  And this is just one such discussion.  But most everyone from the core of the American 4th-wave transfeminism perspective ignores all such debate distinctions, and just slathers everything and everyone with "anti-trans" or "TERF" or "transphobe" labeling any time even one of the subject's views on one of these dozen+ issues isn't aligned with that activism viewpoint, because the activists either don't understand the nuances or find some threat in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fascinated at your insistence that those who actually read the [anti-trans activist] materials in question - as if I don't - come to the conclusion that the label "anti-trans activism" is confused in its application because these writers in fact are concerned about about tensions with LGBTQ+, and especially certain legal definitional problems but that they are in reality pro-trans, and it is activists from the core of American 4th-wave transfeminism who either don't understand the nuances or find some threat in them. Bollocks; utter bollocks.
 * I live in Canada, and within my jurisdiction Meghan Murphy is the most prominent representative of the perspectives many would call "anti-trans". For all her eloquence, none of her work - with which I am quite familiar - carries any of the nuance that I am supposed to be missing in this account. Murphy simply opposes legal protections for trans people based on trumped-up, spurious grounds. And in my experience it is transfeminists and 4th-wave feminists, not anti-trans activists, who understand the nuances related to simultaneous protection of rights based on sex assignment, gender, gender identity and sexual identity. To me, "anti-trans activism" looks a lot easier to define objectively than "Neo-Nazi" identity, in a contemporary context. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This cuts at something I mentioned above, which is that an editor's sense of value-laden depends on their own biases and preconceptions. It's why the important thing is to look at how high-quality reliable non-opinion sources (especially ones that can generally be trusted to use neutral language) refer to things - we always go by the sources; an editor's gut feeling or personal opinion that something is value-laden has no weight and should never matter for content decisions. WP:LABEL absolutely cannot be used to override the sources in that case.  WP:NPOV would prevent this in any case, but I have sometimes seen a few people try to cite LABEL as an argument to disregard the plain consensus of sources.  Often, as I note above, this argument is coupled with an argument that the sources are wrong or that the way they currently cover things is in some way flawed and must be corrected - in that context this argument amounts to trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, ie. no matter how strenuously an editor feels that someone should not be called a white supremacist or a socialist or whatever else they find objectionable, if they are universally referred to as such in reliable sourcing, and there is a plain consensus among the highest quality reliable sources that they can be referred to as such in a neutral, factually-accurate tone, then it is inappropriate to try and use Wikipedia as a place to "correct the record", so to speak.  We follow, we don't lead. --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, while we're speaking of personal experience, I have seen editors try to affix labels in wikivoice even though the sources for those labels are rather few and poor; e.g., outlets that mix news and opinion. Said editors then waste time arguing tendentiously and accuse others of having the bias instead. Basically, WP:SOAPBOX/WP:TRUTH behavior. The guideline shouldn't aid that. Crossroads -talk- 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the policies covering that are WP:RSOPINION (and WP:RS more broadly), WP:DUE, WP:BIASED, and so on - obviously care has to be taken when using biased or opinionated sources, and especially when using them to cite things in wikivoice. But some people, by my reading, are arguing that we cannot use such terms even when the sourcing is strong, or are pushing for an interpretation where the strength of sourcing has no relevance compared to an editor's determination that a term is "value-laden" (and, implicitly, that the sources shouldn't have used it regardless of their quality and number - some of the arguments in previous discussions have overtly argued from this perspective.) Obviously editors are sometimes going to disagree on WP:DUE and whether a source is WP:BIASED or the like, and sometimes even whether something qualifies as WP:RSOPINION, but those at least ground the dispute in some sort of reference to the sources. What I object to is interpretations of WP:LABEL that allow people to ignore sourcing, or to directly override terms widely used in high-quality sources based on their own personal opinion that it is value-laden and therefore should not be used. --Aquillion (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this claim a couple times elsewhere, but: even though that's apparently a common interpretation of MOS:LABEL, it's not actually what it says. The text of MOS:LABEL refers to certain words or phrases a priori and doesn't make any exception for context or sourcing. According to MOS:LABEL as currently written, "neo-Nazi" is always a value-laden label no matter how strong the sourcing is or who it's describing. Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to change MOS. Just because articles are doing this doesn't mean it makes for better articles.  It also doesn't mean we should change the MOS to reflect what editors are doing.  Heck, the MOS probably says we shouldn't mispell (!) words but that doesn't stop me others!  Masem linked to a long VP discussion related to this topic.  There wasn't a consensus to change things but in part that was because it's not clear what MOS/policy/guideline changes would improve things.  Springee (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to change MOS. I'm reminded of the talk page thread In-text attribution, I think there have been others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No change. Loki doesn't appear to be properly parsing the material, concluding "there is no option to use a contentious label in Wikivoice" and wanting to use such "especially when they are 'widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, but this is already exactly what the guideline says to do: "Value-laden labels&nbsp... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". And, yes, they should include attribution.  It's just not necessary to use attribution at every single instance if attribution is already provided in the article, and indy RS are overwhelmingly of the same opinion on it.  See also WP:TRUTH and WP:DUE.  The most common error being made in this area is quoting advocacy organization A badmouthing the opposite-advocacy organization B (e.g. "has been labeled a 'white nationalism and supremacy hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center") and then proceeding to use all or part of that biased description in WP's own voice.  That is not proper.  If F-loads of secondary sources like major national newspapers, government agencies, etc., etc., all come to this conclusion, then it is a safer bet.  It is not a safe bet if the labeling is just from a group or two of the subject's ideological opponents.  However, WP:ABOUTSELF is generally also applicable: if the org's own materials clearly state a white-nationalist agenda and racial superiority claims, then the combination of their own primary source material and that of critics and some news is likely enough for something like "is a white-nationalist and white-supremacist organization" in WP's own voice in the lead; just make sure these claims are sourced and attributed in detail in the article body. It's really no different from how we approach fringe matters; if all the science worth reading says it's pseudo-science, so do we, and we give high-profile examples of such declarations from major science sources. But if it's an ongoing scientific controversy without an overwhelming real-world consensus that it's bunk, then we lay out a more neutral analysis.  As with exactly how to write up a science claim, how to write about a new or low-profile organization will usually become clearer over time as more source material (and more analytical, secondary source material) emerges. Be, however, very suspicious if someone wants to apply negative labels like this in an article that touches in any way on gender-identity politics. It's been my direct experience that the entire range of viewpoints (which are quite nuanced, and do not form a left–right or other dipole pair of extremes, but a much more complex range of ideas, often in conflict  the left) gets compressed to just "pro-TERF" or "anti-trans" by trans-rights activists any time even a single agenda element doesn't match their viewpoint. Doing that is WP:POV-pushing and WP:SOAPBOXing, as well as WP:OR of the worst sort (warping interpretation of source material to claim it says something it does not). I bring this up because approx. 2/3 of the respondents here so far are embroiled in an ongoing ARBCOM case involving this stuff.  This looks very much like an attempt to do an end-run around rules that several persons involved in the case are apt to find used to restrain their behavior.
 * Not to mention the way trans-rights activists gets used as a label for people who hold or sympathize with various trans-positive views that others object to. Let us indeed not use such controversial labels (in article space or Talk space), as it certainly is WP:POV-pushing and WP:SOAPBOXing, as well as WP:OR of the worst sort. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I regret to inform you that there is a second clause of that sentence you claim I am not properly parsing: Value-laden labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution (emphasis mine). I agree that being consistently described a certain way in unreliable sources is not enough for a WP:LABEL, but thankfully the guideline and Wikipedia's overall verification policy already covers that. (As for your second paragraph, I would like to, as politely as possible, request that you get off your own WP:SOAPBOX and focus on the issue at hand here.) Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Object to the Framing - I disagree fundamentally with Loki's framing of this question, as it confuses whether a label is "contentious" as in RS disagree that it applies, or whether it simply identifies the subject as taking one side of a contentious dispute. I don't think MOS:LABEL was ever intended to cover the second case, where the applicability of the label is undisputed; certainly the examples given in the current text of LABEL all seem to fit better with the former interpretation.
 * As an aside, I would also suggest that "conspiracy theorist" should be placed within the same carve-out as "pseudoscience", as the same principles apply. Nobody describes themselves as a conspiracy theorist, but that shouldn't stop the encyclopaedia from identifying them as such based on the undisputed consensus of RS/reality. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To a point, I agree with this if the person spouts many different theories. If they put out one theory and maybe not even stick to that hard, labeling them a "conspiracy theorist" is perhaps far too strong a term, even if a few sources use the term. I do object, however, to when "conspiracy theorist" is placed with high weight alongside careers as in Marjorie Taylor Greene presently: "Marjorie Taylor Greene (née Taylor; born May 27, 1974) is an American politician and conspiracy theorist..." (as you don't earn money for being one) but this is a more a tone/impartial wording issue and less about the label factor. --M asem (t) 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The current wording of MOS:LABEL strongly implies that it covers certain phrases regardless of context. So for example, it also refers to contentious labels as value-laden labels, and gives the examples of such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion. It doesn't say anything about the organization, individual, or sexual practice, implying that those are all value-laden or contentious labels regardless of the details of the situation. Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But cult, terrorist, freedom fighter and perversion are all terms based in subjective validation, and have no objective criteria to determine whether they apply. Terrorist/freedom fighter is the classic example of this, because during the Cold War which organizations one labelled "terrorists" and which were "freedom fighters" was completely dependent on one's ideological commitments, so that one side's "terrorists" were the other side's "freedom fighters", and vice versa. "Sexist" and "racist" are more complicated cases, but there are clearly no generally-agreed or "objective" criteria as to who is to be considered "sexist" or "racist" on an individual level, though the broader speech community has "blatant sexism" or "overt racism" to cover the truly obvious cases.
 * In any event, all of these terms are different from "pseudoscience", and "conspiracy theory", and I would argue also such political labels as "anti-Jewish", "antifemimist" and "anti-gay"/"anti-trans", where objective criteria can be applied and those objecting to the categorization are only objecting to its stigma. For example, Carl Benjamin doesn't argue that he is pro-feminist or feminism-agnostic but, rather, that feminists really are to blame. Labels from this family - where BLP subjects object to the label only as part of their support for the POV that reliable sources identity using that label - should not be considered "contentious" at all, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they really objective? This seems to be a sliding scale just like many other terms. If a person is critical of Israel are they anti-Jewish? What if they only talk about arguably legitimate things for which Israel can be criticized but they never give credit where credit is due? Is that anti-Jewish or even anti-Israel? What if they say Israel should be wiped off the face of the map? I think we could all agree that's anti-Irael but is it anti-Jewish? Is opposition to a gender pay law anti-feminist or just anti-that law? Is opposition to affirmative action or preferential hiring based on race/gender racist/genderist or something else? I don't think these things are always so clear and as we have seen with the TERF discussion these labels are often used as a way to signal to outsiders that one side is wrong on moral grounds. Springee (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And, fortunately, we have WP:RS to offer their guidance on these objective criteria (or disputes concerning whether objective criteria exist, where such disputes exist). Editors do not need to figure these things out on our own, either individually or collectively. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] These are all questions we do not answer ourselves. We delegate them to reliable sources. If a Wikipedia editor has sources saying "X is critical of Israel" and adds to the article the sentence "X is anti-Jewish", that is wrong because of WP:OR. The same is true for all the other questions here. When high-quality, academic RS do say "X is anti-Jewish", then we can say that. If not, we can't. If a newspaper says, "Y called X anti-Jewish", then we can say that. The quality of sources needed varies with the term to be used and with the wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But how is that different than how we decide group A are "freedom fighters"? If we say RSs say it, fine but that doesn't mean it's clearly objective any more than we should assume "anti-trans" is a clearly objective assessment made by the RS.  Springee (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because there aren't high-quality reliable sources that refer to anyone as "freedom fighters" in their own editorial voice, FFS. Newimpartial (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than the NYT? [] I'm sure other examples can be found.  Springee (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't think editors were supposed to interpret "features" as representing any newsroom's editorial voice. Second, the article also refers to the same people as "vigilantes" and "a ragtag group of fighters", so I don't see any particular endorsement of "freedom fighter" as a label for them. Finally, I was talking - perhaps unclearly - about cases where the labels go "all the way up" the hierarchy of reliable sources, including academic sources. "Conspiracy theorist" is an obvious example, and we have previously discussed on Talk pages to what extent "extremist" has a signification that has been defined convincingly in the academy. "Freedom fighter" is clearly not such a term Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No change. I agree with Crossroads. ("Christian fundamentalism" is a legitimate, neutral term for a particular kind of Protestantism; "fundamentalist" becomes a value-laden label when used as a synonym for "dogmatic and anti-intellectual".) There are certain characterisations (like "X is a false religion") that should never appear in Wikipedia's voice, no matter how often they show up in reliable sources. (Recall that reliable sources are not required to be neutral.) Cheers, gnu 57 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Conclusions
Would it be helpful to have a MOS:CONCLUSIONS section in Manual of Style/Words to watch with words to watch such as therefore, thus, and so, consequently, hence, etc.? All these words imply drawing a conclusion. Unless used in a direct quote or supported by a citation, these words imply conclusions drawn by editors and not sourced facts or statements. "So" may be problematic as it has other lexical uses besides indicating a conclusion. – cheers – Epinoia (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Looking at how the word is used in articles, I don't see evidence that we have a significant problem here.  If you find individual instances of this, then you might be interested in Template:Original research inline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Falsely
Are there any problems with the word "falsely"? It's not specifically listed on this page. Could possibly fall under MOS:EDITORIAL or WP:IMPARTIAL. It is springing up on pages related to Donald Trump claiming election fraud, i.e. "Donald Trump falsely claimed that he won the election". – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well of course 'claimed' is a violation of WP:CLAIM and I think when people begin to string all those disclaimers together, it smacks of The lady doth protest too much, methinks as if a critical reader of Wikipedia is somehow going to miss that said statements were false. Elizium23 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. By the way, any suggestions for re-writing the above sentence? – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Donald Trump said that he won the election" is all that needs to be said, and contextualized, if needed, so that is obvious that no evidence was produced. Elizium23 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends. We obviously do want to say "Dr X falsely claims that coffee enemas can cure bowel cancer" (assuming RS says it) because sometimes such negations are intrinsic to accepted knowledge on a topic, which Wikipedia must reflect. Other areas, like on political matters, are obviously more tricky. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I asked a related question here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_9. The results were mixed so no resolution was reached.  My personal feeling is as follows, stating a claim or conclusion is false is not value laden.  The results of the experiment were false.  The claim made by Mr Smith was false.  However, when we state "Mr Smith falsely claimed the Earth is flat" the problem is it is ambiguous if we are defining falsely as merely "not true" or "not true with the intent to deceive.".  If Mr Smith believes the information then we shouldn't say falsely as it could imply he was intending to deceive, not just state what he believes to be true.  Mr Smith might be from an isolated tribe that does believe the Earth is flat.  In my view if we don't know the intent then we shouldn't use words that can imply an attempt to deceive. Springee (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Falsely claim" is the language that newspapers and fact-checkers use to state that a claim is false without implying the speaker is knowingly lying. (Recent examples from a Google News search: .) Avoiding this language when the WP:RS use it risks violating NPOV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See, for example, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Falsely" is a straightforward statement of fact. It should be used when the sources are clear (and not in other situations.)  Some caution is warranted because its use in that context is a stark statement of fact in the article voice and therefore often requires strong sourcing, especially if it implies something WP:EXCEPTIONAL, but it isn't a WTW itself any more than any other statement of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's false and sources describe it as such, I don't see a problem. Variants would be "discredited", some sources say "baseless allegations", etc.  Using "lie" would be something else, though.  Even "claim" (that is in the guide) can be appropriate when in the right context (and "to watch" is about avoiding where undue, not forbidding).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "incorrectly" would be a preferable term in many instances because I think "falsely" can imply the deliberate will to deceive but context would be an important factor in making an ultimate determination so I would say we should decide on a case by case basis. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do agree with the above comment that the use of "incorrectly" in cases like that would be appropriate, however, I also see nothing wrong with using "falsely" (especially if whatever being discussed or referred to has in fact been proven false) once the context surrounding the statement is clearly explained so as not to give the impression of perceived bias. Though, the sentence could simply be written as "Trump said (or announced) that he won the election but statements from the White House (or names of news outlets or other relevant source) revealed he had lost to Biden..." or something along those lines. There are multiple ways it could be worded depending on what you are is trying to be say said without using terms that could cause dissension among editors. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In some cases it works and in other cases it does not work. I am not addressing any specific usages. I am only speaking in generalities. Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to imply that you were. I was addressing both general usage+applicability to the specific example above, but realize now how it could appear misleading. I've ammended my comment to clarify. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nary a problem,, nice to make your acquaintance. Bus stop (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly has the opposite problem that people are claiming with falsely in that it implies an honest factual error, rather than willful deception (or neutral between the two). I echo my sentiment from the last time this was discussed that it's best to leave it to editors with using their judgement on what the best word choice is. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "it's best to leave it to editors with using their judgement". Sure, it can be decided on a case by case basis. But if there is a dispute between "falsely" and "incorrectly" then the sentence should be re-cast. That may entail writing two sentences—one sentence to say what the person asserted, another sentence to state how the verified fact differs from what the person said, and to be utterly clear, a citation to a reliable source could follow each sentence. By presenting the relevant information in a different way, we can resolve an editorial dispute, we can avoid introducing bias to the article, and we can allow the reader to reach their own conclusion as to whether an honest mistake transpired or a deliberate will to deceive transpired. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Case by case basis means that even the solution should be decided for particular cases. In some instances, your proposal might be a proper solution. In others, community input would be warranted on whether falsely or incorrectly is the better choice. I don't think it's helpful to try to anticipate problems and solutions and then make sweeping statements about the latter when we don't have any indication that blanket prescriptions are warranted or helpful here. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 13:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —you say "Incorrectly has the opposite problem that people are claiming with falsely". There is no need to say that a person "incorrectly" or "falsely" said something. We can omit both terms. We can simply say that someone said something. A citation can support that they indeed said that. In a subsequent sentence we can state a verified fact that contradicts what they said. A citation can be put in place supporting that verified fact. The reader will read sentence A and sentence B and recognize immediately that there is a contradiction between the two sentences. They will decide on their own whether this is an instance of willful deception or honest mistake—or even if the supposedly verified fact is somehow not so "factual" after all. What I am suggesting is that we sidestep this problem. Rather than Wikipedia taking a stance on this question I am suggesting that we just present the reader with the applicable facts and leave it at that. There is no need to say that a person "incorrectly" or "falsely" said something. "Falsely" and "incorrectly" are adverbs that have slightly different implications. I think we can dispense with them. We can simply re-cast the problematic sentence, probably into two sentences. When the two sentences are considered together the contradiction becomes evident. We aren't really here to tell readers what to think. We are here to provide information. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really care to repeat myself. Please re-read my comments and tell me if you are confused by something I said. Your proposal strikes me as a heavy handed attempt to solve a problem of content disputes that don't actually exist and that cannot be shown to be a viable solution without actual examples. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no problem, if it is "false" and RS describe it like that.--Renat (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally think that the language "X falsely claimed Y" implied some malicious intent in X making that claim (as one can argued behind Trump's claims regarding the election). This is to distinguish from someone that makes a claim that later turns out to be false, but the person making that claim original had no malicious intent in their statement - they were using all best educated guesses in making their claim (eg we would never say "the weatherman falsely claimed it would be clear and sunny today, but it was a rainy all afternoon.") As such, we should not use "falsely claimed" in Wikivoice, but should attribute it or point to where that's coming from, eg for Trump "Many journalists have stated that Trump falsely claimed that he won the election.", or otherwise rework to remove the "falsely", eg "Trump claimed he won the election, which has since been demonstrated false." (that's acceptable in Wikivoice). --M asem (t) 17:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The inference depends on context. While it might be present for your example, I can think of others where it is not. For example, if I said "X falsely attributed Y to Z" the inference of malicious intent is gone. There are too many contexts to make it feasible to proscribe the use of false or falsely or even to list the verb-adjective combinations that editors should use or avoid. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could still see cases of the form "X falsely attributed Y to Z" as a malicious form, depending on context (eg : "Congressman John Q. Smith falsely attributed the Jan. 6 attacks to antifa."). Context very much matters. --M asem (t) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it really hard to think of cases along those lines where something would be acceptable in journalist-voice and not in wiki-voice. False claim and falsehood are what they say instead of lie, precisely because the latter implies a knowing deception. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * —just because something is found in a reliable source is no reason that we are compelled to include it in our encyclopedia. One reason for that is that we aim for a neutral point of view. The statement made by the person can be stated and, separately, the verified fact can be stated. The discrepancy between the verified fact and the statement is thereby obvious to the reader, and in compliance with our cherished neutral point of view. No words are banned. This is the manual of style. I don't think locutions containing the word "falsely" are impermissible. But if the argument is between "falsely" and "incorrectly" I think we are facing a neutral point of view issue. You refer to the journalist voice. Journalists don't necessarily face neutral point of view issues. But we do. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that they have different pressures, but in this case, they are confronted with exactly the problem we are, and that's the solution that newspapers of record have gone with. NPOV means reflecting the sources accurately; if we fail to do a thing that they do consistently, we are quite possibly violating our own principle. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with XOR'easter. Journalists have made this choice because they are trying to be neutral. If we are to make a different choice, we should have an actual reason to do so and not rely on handwaving in lieu of logic. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia should inform readers and if reliable sources say a claim is false, an article on the topic should make that clear from the start. Much of the media avoid terms like false because it will make enemies of those pushing the false claims. Wikipedia should not deceive readers to avoid offending anyone. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a difference in tone of saying "a claim is false" and "falsely claiming", however. The former is a neutral statement, only identifying the claim as false and nothing with intent. --M asem (t) 05:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, "made the false claim" would be acceptable in your eyes, but "falsely claimed" would not? I cannot see any difference, but maybe it is just me.
 * Or is "made the false claim" also bad because of the presence in the same sentence of the claimant and the falseness of the claim, which is not there in "a claim is false"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a subtle distinction that is probably not worth pursuing on this page. It's a more formal register (think fornication vs having an affair), it can be ambiguous with respect to intent, and people may associate it with (deliberate) falsehoods.  But it can be used correctly, and sometimes it may be a good to describe a situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The distinction is rather important. "Falsily claiming" is putting an additional descriptor on the action of a person, whereas "made a false claim" puts the additional description on the statement itself. The latter gives no implication about the motives of the person making the claim, and thus void of any possible BLP problems (assuming sources back the stance the claim is false). Whereas the "falsely claiming" statement is description the action of the person, and depending on context, could be taken as a BLP issue if that is attempting to suggest intentionally lying. --M asem (t) 03:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see the implication of deceptiveness in "falsely" (or an implication of no deceptiveness in "incorrectly"). Per WP:FRINGE and because we endorse the scientific method as well as oppose the censorship of facts inconvenient to politicians, there are many cases when "falsely" is the appropriate descriptor to use to make something very clear in a context where it would otherwise seem to a reader like it might be a matter of "just a different opinion", "the science isn't in yet", "just a theory", "I'm allowed my own view", "this figure said it and this one disagreed so who am I to believe?" etc. As such, "falsely" can be wrong or overused—which would put it in the same scenario as many of our words to watch ("but", "renowned", "currently" etc.) that are certainly not wrong but, as it says on the tin, you want to watch where you use them. But I don't see a convincing case that it could be categorised specifically as MOS:EDITORIAL. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)