User:LokiTheLiar/Avoid vague loaded terms

Wikipedia has a guideline against using value-laden labels. However, one may note through observation that seemingly value-laden labels are used all over Wikipedia: Adolf Hitler is called a Nazi, Richard B. Spencer a neo-Nazi, Jim Jones a cult leader, and the Unabomber a terrorist. Why has the community accepted using these terms in these situations?

Very simple: because what is a MOS:LABEL and what is not is not defined by the word itself, but by the context surrounding it, and in particular whether the term used in context both is vague, in the sense that it lacks informative content, and is loaded, in the sense that it is high on emotional content. The reason for avoiding value-laden labels is because we're trying to convey accurate information here, and we would like to avoid giving someone a powerful but unsourced emotional impression of the subject that overrides the factual content of the article.

What is vague?

A term is vague if it is low on informative content. Saying

Adolf Hitler was a Nazi.

has a very clear, defined, meaning: Hitler was a member of the Nazi Party of Germany. This is a particular organization whose membership can be verified beyond a doubt by reliable sources, so even though "Nazi" is a very loaded term, it's fine to call Hitler a Nazi.

Going down a step, saying

Richard B. Spencer is a Nazi.

is a little less well defined, but still pretty clear: Richard B. Spencer is, ideologically, a neo-Nazi and this can be verified through mountains of reliable sourcing. In this situation, "Nazi" refers to a particular defined ideology, and knowing that Spencer is one gives the reader significant information about what he believes and what he's known for, so in this situation it's permissible to call him a Nazi if the sourcing is very strong, as it is in this case.

However, saying

David Bowie was a Nazi.

is extremely vague. The backstory here is that for a brief time in the late 70s, David Bowie played a character called the "Thin White Duke" and while in-character made statements admiring fascism and Hitler. This did not continue and Bowie was denouncing racism as soon as 1980. Could anyone be expected to get all of that from the statement "David Bowie was a Nazi"? No, of course not.

And of course something like

The president of the United States is a Nazi.

to mean something along the lines of "The president of the United States is more authoritarian than I would like" is so unclear it's essentially meaningless.

What is loaded?

A term is loaded if it is high on emotional content.

On one end, saying something like

Jack the Ripper was a criminal.

is very low on emotional content in the circumstances. Jack the Ripper is known primarily for committing grisly murders, and that's really the only thing known about him. One could equally well describe him as a "killer", a "murderer", or indeed as a "ripper" or "butcher", and all of these are reasonable descriptions of the facts of the situation. However, "criminal" in this situation is the least emotionally charged description of him, so, at least on this axis, it's preferable.

On the other hand, saying something like

Rosa Parks was a criminal.

while literally true (as Rosa Parks is also primarily known for committing a crime) is extremely emotionally charged and likely to provoke a strong reaction. This is not what we want, so we would prefer terms like "protestor" or "activist" in this case.

Note that positive descriptions can also be loaded. Something like

Rosa Parks was a hero.

is also to be avoided.

You need both

Something is a WP:LABEL only if it is both vague and loaded. Saying

Oscar Wilde sometimes did things.

may be very vague but it's not loaded at all, so it's permissible (at least under MOS:LABEL).

On the other hand, something like

Oscar Wilde was convicted of gross indecency

is a very loaded term, but because it's the name of a specific crime that he was indeed convicted of, it's very specific, and therefore despite its charged nature is not a WP:LABEL.