Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

In a nutshell

Surely 'this page in a nutshell' violates the very rules set out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:9063:1100:DC72:8553:40FC:E65D (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes you say that? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders:, I can't read their mind, but am guessing it's a failed joke on the pejorative "nuts" for someone with mental health issues. IP 2A02: if that wasn't your intention, feel free to weigh in again; and if it was, well, it kinda fell flat. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"In a nutshell" is a metaphor, and it shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Clichés and idioms. (Also, that section probably ought to be renamed ==Clichés and metaphors==.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's an appropriate metaphor even if it is a bit of a cliche. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The term is used for every policy and guideline. If you want to change that, go to the village pump. TFD (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: MOS:LABEL

Should the first paragraph of MOS:LABEL be changed to the following? –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change:

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, if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Current text for reference:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Springee (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as nom. This would fix a conflict between LABEL, which currently requires attribution even for descriptions that are widely stated as fact by reliable sources, and INTEXT, which warns against using unnecessary attribution as it can create a neutrality violation by casting doubt on verifiable facts. Best to defer to the P&G here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Not a good question It is good to have LABEL, NPOV and INTEXT all align but, what do we do with the output of this RfC? What changes if any would a consensus for support result in here? First, this RfC certainly implies LABEL conflicts with the other two. However, it isn't clear that is true per the discussion above. Certainly if they disagree and to what extent is a point of dispute. Second, even if they are assumed to conflict what should be changed? Should LABEL be updated to match the others or should the others be undated to match LABEL or something in between? I would suggest closing this RfC and formulating a better question. Springee (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  what do we do with the output of this RfC? I'm pretty sure that every editor with your experience level knows exactly what will happen: If there is consensus to change the first paragraph to the proposed paragraph, then someone opens the editing window for LABEL, copies the proposed text, and pastes it in. If there is no consensus to change it, then nothing happens.

  This RFC doesn't imply anything about the two linked pages (and the above discussion states it outright as a view held by many editors, rather than just "implying" it).

  This proposed change sidesteps the question of Should LABEL be updated to match the others or should the others be undated to match LABEL or something in between? by saying that LABEL's going to tell you to go read the other two, which can be changed (or not) by you or anyone else, using the usual processes at those other pages.

  The question for you today is small: Do you personally believe that this proposed text is better or worse than the existing text? It's not trying to solve all the problems for every page. It's just asking if this text might be better. If you think it is even slightly better than the old text, then you should support the change. If you think it is worse, then you should oppose it. This RFC is not asking you what should or shouldn't happen on other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This makes it much easier to insert contentious labels as claims of fact, and thus abets tendentious editing and the laundering of opinion into "fact" via citing a few opinionated sources. WP:BIASEDSOURCES can be reliable for claims of fact, but opinions do not become fact simply by being in such a source. This is a common issue and will only result in more and worse disputes. When in doubt, it is in actually much better to go with attribution and thus err on the side of caution than to make it easy for opinions that align with editors' biases to be stated as fact.
  WP:WIKIVOICE is clear: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." This is what WP:LABEL is getting at. If certain terms listed (like neo-Nazi, an example in the discussion above) are widely well-defined free of reference to subjective values, then the issue is their listing in the examples, not LABEL itself.
  Note that Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts is listed separately at WIKIVOICE; it is not the case that an opinion becomes fact just because no sources bother to specifically contest the opinionated labeling of some factually-reliable but partisan political magazines or similar sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal is to defer to NPOV which would include WIKIVOICE, no? –dlthewave ☎ 23:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  The current version of LABEL does not mention that NPOV, including NPOV's WIKIVOICE section, need to be complied with for all articles. If compliance with NPOV's WIKIVOICE section is important to you, then presumably you would support this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is much less clear. If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim that someone being an X-phobe is a fact and not an opinion. They'd be wrong, of course, but it is much harder to explain, and that gives them more room to deny it and be tendentious. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support It is a very good idea to explicitly remind editors about the necessity of complying with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support the first part, oppose the second. The first is indeed value-laden labels that often are editorializing, but myths should be called myths. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  The sentence about myths is part of the longstanding consensus version of LABEL. Srey Sros^talk 15:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I will note that NPOV is already linked from the overall page header, while INTEXT specific to the LABEL section, so this would seem to be redundant. However, I am sure that the intent here is more related to how some want to take WP:WIKIVOICE which I have additional comments on later. --Masem (t) 02:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose On the primary grounds that the current text provides a better way to handle contentious labels and it's not clear the current text is in conflict with LABEL as currently written and INTEXT/NPOV. It's arguable that this change is a non-change since it still allows for "best avoided" and "if used at all" could imply the same thing. Fundamentally the issue here is some editors think LABEL is being improperly used to whitewash while others are concerned that without editors will attempt to use Wikipedia to blackwash. This fundamentally doesn't have to be a NPOV issue as it hasn't been shown that one can't be both compliant with the current wording of LABEL and NPOV. Without a clear statement why this should be changed and what this intends to fix I oppose the change. Springee (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed change would encourage the use of labels. Labels are uninformative. Encouraging the use of labels encourages editors to think that their purpose in editing Wikipedia is to pass judgment, rather than to provide information. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

NB I have deleted an edit by Endwise because I think it violates WP:BLP. Please would other editors review my revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Masem: Please give your view, as an admin, on my revert of Endwise’s edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• A couple weeks old, but since this was stylized in a way that drew my attention I checked it out: the supposed BLP violtaion was a hyperbolic hypothetical, so likely not a BLP violation; in any case, it would be better to (a) just remove the BLP violation rather than undo, and (b) not select the specific admin you want to evaluate your action (thankfully Masem is competent as an admin, so didn't take it up). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose [Amended, thank you Sweet6970] This reads as an attempt to water down defenses against the abuse of Wikipedia by those who wish to use the encyclopedia to denigrate people (by calling them racists, perverts, sexists, evil, etc.). The change from are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject to if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of veiw [sic] goes from specific advice encouraging avoidance of these opinionated or value-laden labels unless necessary, to advice that is so vague as to be almost meaningless: "comply with NPOV". Okay, but of course replacing specific advice with advice that is meaninglessly vague makes it free to ignore. That is the opposite of what we want – we should seek to avoid the labeling of subjects with opinionated terms like "racist" or "sexual pervert", not encourage it. Similarly, moving from in which case use in-text attribution to must comply with [...] In-text attribution, takes advice which says to attribute opinionated, value-labels to those who are using them, to advice which merely vaguely suggests that perhaps starting articles with "John Q. Citizen (born January 1, 1900) is an American politician, racist sexual pervert and child abuser, and ..." is arguably possibly something you should maybe consider avoiding. That is not the direction Wikipedia should be heading. Endwise (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The current version fails to acknowledge that NPOV requires us to navigate between the Scylla of stating facts as opinions and the Charybdis of stating opinions as facts. It stops us from calling someone a pervert, but also stops us from calling Jonestown a cult. Cleaning up the example list by limiting it to labels that are only ever statements of value and not fact would be one solution, but as the current scope is any label that might be considered value-laden, which may express a contentious opinion, the above change reflects the appropriate guidance.--Trystan (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We should have, somewhere in PAG, language that says that we can call Jonestown a cult in wikivoice due to the number of sources over time, but we have nothing in PAG that describes how to separate that from using only two or three sources to try to call something out in wikivoice. We need PAG to explain how to make that distinction first and foremost, and that's something above LABEL since it applies to any issue related to viewpoints (such as when we call something "pseudoscience" or "fringe medicine" which is outside LABEL). In other words, the intent here is right, but the solution is not addressing the problem. --Masem (t) 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

    In which case, if we point to those other pages, you can go get those other pages changed to say whatever you think is appropriate, and LABEL will automatically be synchronized with them. But right now, that specific sentence, unlike anything else, says that we can't use any label at all, no matter how well-sourced, no matter how widely used, no matter how obvious the claim, without providing in-text attribution. The old version does not have any exceptions whatsoever to its direct command to "use in-text attribution". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:LABEL supplements rather than contradicts other PAGs and is easy to follow -- if it's true that the label is widely used. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose LABEL is perfectly fine as it is, and making the relation with and references to other policies explicit helps keep them interconnected (an inherently good thing: no Wikipedia policy applies in isolation from the others) and avoids misinterpretations from possibly narrow readings of each guideline (as well as avoiding apparent contradictions if either text gets updated without a consequent change in the other). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Support (see previous comment for rationale). Whoever it is that wrote this got me confused and I thought that the proposed text was the one at the bottom... Fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Question Am I the only one honestly having a hard time telling the two apart? What, in practice, is the difference between "if used at all" and "are best avoided"? Is the upshot of the proposed change localized in removing the "widely used by" part? On that point, I tend to prefer the suggested replacement, since reminding people about NPOV can't be bad and "widely" is a vague term that can be wiki-lawyered over, but it's genuinely hard for me to tell what the change here is supposed to accomplish. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  The difference is:

  • "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"
  • "if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution"

  The proposed version says that the first sentence of Homeopathy can say "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine", and the old version says that that sentence is not okay, because even though it is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", it is necessary to "use in-text attribution" always, in all cases. If you read WP:INTEXT itself, you find no such requirement to spam in something like "according to every credible scientist during the last hundred years" while using that "widely used" value-laden label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is that no part of NPOV or INTEXT supports the use of wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims to be made as fact without attribution, editors have just assumed that. Not one bit. Attribution is 100% required by a strict read. Of course, there should be cases when we should be able to use wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims as wikivoice fact without attribution, but we need to spell that out first at INTEXT, and then LABEL will fall in line automatically with that. You're assuming a conflict with LABEL when the problem is that you're working on a practice that is not documented at all at this point in the first place that probably should be documented. --Masem (t) 14:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, what? That's nonsense. If it's actually true that no part of NPOV or INTEXT supports the use of wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims to be made as fact without attribution, then we need to re-write every single article from scratch. We'll have to change the first sentence of George Washington to say something like "According to every reputable historian for at least the last two hundred years, George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was an American soldier, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797", because the current version "uses wikivoice to make widely accepted claims as fact without in-text attribution".

  This is not how encyclopedias work. Facts, including facts like "Jim Jones was a cult leader" and "Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist" get reported in wikivoice, not watered down into just someone's opinion.

  BTW, if we don't make the change that you're opposing, then anything you "spell that out first at INTEXT" will not be automatically reflected in LABEL. If you want LABEL to automatically fall in line with INTEXT, then you need to have LABEL say "follow whatever INTEXT says", not "every single instance of the word cult in this encyclopedia requires in-text attribution even if there is unanimous agreement by all reliable sources that this is a fact". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Terms like "soldier", "statesman", or "POTUS" are not points of view. Those are all objective facts and do no need attribution. Whereas what is a cult, for example, still is subjective and is a point of view, but with groups likes Jonestown, we have wide agreement that we should be able to say this without inline attribution, whereas with Qanon, we don't have that and we need to be careful. And that's why INTEXT needs to cover it. LABEL already refers to INTEXT and so if INTEXT is properly updated to account for those conditions then LABEL is already set up to follow already. --Masem (t) 20:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  You wroteno part of NPOV or INTEXT supports the use of wikivoice to make widely-accepted claims to be made as fact without attribution. "Widely accepted claims" is not the same thing as "points of view". "Widely accepted claims" include claims like "George Washington was the fist US president" and "Biden is the duly elected current US president". And it's not difficult to find people on the internet who are willing to argue that the latter statement is merely the misguided opinion of people who aren't in possession of all the facts. Is that "just a point of view" in your books? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  whatamIdoing, ah, so the difference is between "in-text attribution" and "in-text attribution", as it were. Being compliant with WP:INTEXT is more flexible than always inserting explicit attribution, since that guideline counsels against explicit attribution in some cases. Namely, explicit attribution can create a false impression of parity, erroneously suggest that only a single source has made a given observation, and clutter articles with information best left to the references. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is not at all correct that "pseudoscience" must always be attributed per current WP:LABEL. It specifically says, With regard to the term pseudoscience: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, when supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science. The solution is not to water down the guideline, but to remove terms that are not opinion but have a widely agreed definition. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  But this comment falsely assumes that the problem with terms to which LABEL applies is that they do not have a widely agreed definition, which is not what a reader of either the LABEL guideline nor the discussion so far could reasonably conclude. Many terms that were listed in LABEL even before the last round of additions ("transphobic", etc.) do have widely agreed, even rigorous definitions (e.g., "cult"), but what I think LABEL tried to get at is that they are also used as terms of disparagement, without rigor. However, NPOV (and INTEXT) require that we take uncontested factual statements (which should include certain uses of "cult") out of wikivoice, and LABEL should not allow editors to create friction against this elemental WP principle by pointing to instances where these same terms are also used casually or loosely. This is fundamentally an empirical question concerning the sourcing in particular instances, discissions that should not be sandbagged by editors shaping the rules to fit their own preconceptions. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m puzzled by comments made at various times in this discussion that “cult” can be a factual statement. Cult includes: In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. If the Wikipedia article on QAnon was to say in Wikivoice that QAnon is a cult, I would not get any information from this – do you mean it’s like Star Trek? or Jonestown? Bear in mind that I’m British, and genuinely know very little about QAnon. This is one of the reasons why I think that the use of labels should be discouraged: they are uninformative. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead of Cult is wrong. It's a word commonly used in modern Egyptology. Cult can certainly be a factual statement. It's also used in modern academic literature, eg Comprehending Cults The Sociology of New Religious Movements by Lorne L. Dawson and published by Oxford Academic Press, among many other publications. There probably are times when we need to attribute when calling something a cult, but there are definitely times when we can say it in Wikivoice. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed – this is another possible meaning of the word. I didn’t mention it because I think that anyone who knows the meaning of the word “cult” in Egyptology would not think that this is the meaning in connection with QAnon. But this is, indeed, another possible source of confusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple meanings for many words, but that doesn't make every subject "just an opinion". We usually provide clarification via a disambiguated wikilink (e.g., Cult following vs Doomsday cult) or explain it directly in the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• A fundamental issue of NPOV is that "uncontested" is taken that to be read "not contested in reliable sources" when it should be based on implicit understanding if the term is a contested term for that situation knowing the situation from a 60,000-ft view as we are from an encyclopedic standpoint. Labels are labels because they are implicitly contestable terms, period, even if you cannot find sources to support specific contested use of that term, and thus should always seek attribution of labels. But, it is absolutely fair to say that, after a significant amount of time and when enduring coverage of the topic is proven out (via a source survey) that there is near agreement that the label is commonly used, that we should be able to use in wikivoice without attribution (as in the case of Jonestown being a cult). The problem is that we have far too many cases when editors say cherry pick a few sources from a recent burst of news and claim that's enough to say its uncontested and make the claim in unattributed wikivoice. That's why there's friction from those defending LABEL because other editors rush to characterize in wikivoice far too quickly. We need a better set of guidance on when we can use unattributed wikivoice first. --Masem (t) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that's true. Labels are labels not because they are contestable, but because some people prefer other labels. Few politicians promote themselves as supporting Climate change denial, but many are happy to call themselves climate change "dissidents" or "skeptics". It's the same fact, just with a made-for-media spin. We put the Wikipedia article at the "denial" title instead of the "dissident" or "skeptic" term because that's the NPOV term, even though it's a LABEL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Labels are sloppy shortcuts for actually describing why a person or group is criticized by the media; we should be far more focused on the events and activities as to capture nuiances that the label itself may not actually capture. This is why labels are, def facto, contestable terms and do not require sources to show that there are those that contest them. --Masem (t) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Labels might sometimes be sloppy shortcuts, but they can often be appropriate, especially when the nuances aren't relevant (e.g., a passing mention to "funded by the conservative Koch brothers" – conservative is as value-laden a label as you can really get, but that doesn't mean its contentious, disputed, or worth explaining exactly how and why everyone says they hold these particular values). Also, labels aren't always about criticizing people. Sometimes they're about praising them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Or more specifically we're missing guidance to judge the balance between the common sense of the "Jonestown is a cult" in wikivoice, and the rush to call Qanon as a cult in wikivoice (instead to document atttributed studies that call it a cult-like groou) based on its recentism. --Masem (t) 14:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that guidance already exists in NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not in any explicit form, particularly with respect to enduring coverage and performing source surveys. I've seen far too many BLP/N and NPOV/N discussions run on the basis that since they found 3-5 sources that support a label, we should able to use that label without attribution. That's absolutely the wrong way of going about this, as WP should not be in the business of trying to cram as much characterization of subjectiveness nature into articles over inclusion of objective material that does trip up in NPOV. --Masem (t) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per User:WhatamIdoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 11:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "if used at all" is an invitation to come through the 'backdoor' to inject labels in articles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Pyxis Solitary, the current version encourages the use of widely used labels, saying "best avoided unless widely used" – which, on the flip side, means "use these when widely used". It feels to me like "if used at all" might be slightly more discouraging of using labels like pseudoscience and climate change denialist than the current version.

  The primarily locus of this dispute, however, is over whether widely used labels are always required to say something like "According to scientists" or "According to these 25 sources", or if it's good enough to report the facts as they are. Some (but not all) LABELs are objective, factual descriptions. Jim Jones really did found a cult, and National Socialist Movement (United States) really is a neo-Nazi group. There are no reliable sources claiming otherwise. Do you think that the leads of those articles need to include a line about "according to sources"? That's what the old version of LABEL requires. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support The proposed revision is in line with what WP:INTEXT actually says, while the current version actually conflicts with the nuances described there. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per the reasoning given above by both WhatamIdoing and XOR'easter. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The change actually properly reflects other policy and guideline pages and reduces conflict over excessive attribution when a label is directly the definition used by the majority of reliable sources. Labels are indeed used all across Wikipedia and we need to be clear on when they should or shouldn't be used. And the crux of that usage will always be down to what the reliable sources say on the subject, as is true for everything on Wikipedia. Many of those opposing seem to be doing so because of the general editor consensus on other articles that the majority of reliable sources do indeed describe the subjects in a certain way (in this case and with sections above, terms like "anti-transgender") and the opposing editors don't want accurate reliably sourced labeling to be used that might inform our readers of the background of those subjects when relevant to the article topics. Silverseren^C 20:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This seems like an assumption of bad faith. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious how the comment by Silver seren is an assumption of bad faith, yet this comment by yourself minutes later is not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

the opposing editors don't want accurate reliably sourced labeling to be used that might inform our readers of the background of those subjects when relevant to the article topics. This is assuming bad faith on the part of the ‘opposing editors’(of which I am one). Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

And you're suggesting that that is more of an assumption of bad faith than Crossroads' own If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim that someone being an X-phobe is a fact and not an opinion? Colour me deeply skeptical. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Crossroads’s remark is not aimed at specific editors: Silver seren’s remark is aimed at me, amongst others. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't think Crossroads' statement, If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim... is aimed at specific editors (namely, those Crossroads has previously accused of activist editing within the gender and sexuality area)? It you do not see this as aimed at me, amongst others, then I question your acumen, Sweet6970. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think.... Sweet6970 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC) clarified Sweet6970 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Huh? The question at hand here is whether use of accurate reliably sourced labeling is valid in articles. Those who support the proposed change believe that, when carefully used in compliance with INTEXT and NPOV (which explicitly prevent any cases where a label encodes a statement of opinion), it is acceptable to use words that some editors consider value-laden.

Those who oppose the proposed change agree with what is currently encoded in LABEL, i.e. they believe that accurate reliably sourced labeling is always invalid in articles and should not ever be used, even when compliant with INTEXT (not expressing an opinion). The only editorializing Silverseren inserts here is arguing that labels can be informative to readers, which to me doesn't seem to be that bold of claim. Srey Sros^talk 15:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply because RSes routinely use a label or any other type of characterization for a topic does not mean we must state that as a fact in wikivoice without attribution. There are reasonable conditions where this would be reasonable, but this should after thoroughly demonstrating that this usage is throughout sources, not cherry picked from a handful, and a product of enduring coverage of the subject and not something from a recent burst of coverage (eg the case for calling Jonestown from decades agos a cult but not the very recent Qanon). The problem is that we don't have any such guidiance on how this should be evaluated or considered in any PAG (its not in NPOV or INTEXT), and it is the fact that we lack this type of guidance is why we have issues around cases like with the anti-trans section above. This is stuff that needs to be considered at NPOV or INTEXT, because it logical to have this allowances spelled out once demonstrated through a thorough source survey, and to make it a bar that must be met so that we still default to requiring attribution. --Masem (t) 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though I do think the proposal could benefit from some copyediting/rewording. I am perplexed by arguments made here that the proposed text will allow for the laundering of opinion into "fact", to quote one of the several accounts making this sort of argument. Anything of this sort would be explicitly prevented by INTEXT, which the proposed change cites as a restricting factor: [in-text attribution] should always be used for biased statements of opinion. If the argument here is that having a restriction in one guideline isn't enough, we can explicitly spell out the restriction in LABEL, for instance "...must comply with the neutral point of view and in-text attribution policies. In-text attribution should always be used for biased statements of opinion."

A confounding factor here is that nobody here seems to agree on what is or isn't a value-laden label, and so we keep getting into these circles in which people who support the change argue that LABEL prohibits usage of some word in articles, and then people who oppose the change say "oh, but that isn't a LABEL". A great example of this is neo-Nazi, which has remained on the blacklist in the stable version of LABEL for years yet is used all over Wikipedia when it matches the consensus of reliable sources.Srey Sros^talk 16:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@SreySros, I think that an example in the RFC itself might help. At the risk of Godwinning the RFC, I think this is clear enough:

1. The first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) says, and should say, it's a neo-Nazi organization. That's a fact, not an opinion. It is the overwhelming view of all reliable sources, and it can be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE without WP:INTEXT attribution, exactly like the article has done for the last 15 years.
2. The first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) says, and should say, that it's a neo-Nazi organization. However, that sentence must include WP:INTEXT attribution to explain who, exactly, assigns this value-laden label to that group (e.g., "According to political scholars and mainstream media"). Editors at that article have been wrong for the last 15 years.

The current version of LABEL requires that every single use of value-laden labels, explicitly including neo-Nazi, cult, denialist, pseudoscience, etc. be provided with INTEXT attribution. The current version – unlike NPOV and INTEXT – admits to no exceptions to its rule requiring in-text attribution. Anyone who actually supports the current version, as it is written, in practice is an editor who supports changing the first sentence of the article about National Socialist Movement (United States). And if you think you oppose this change to LABEL, but you think the first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) is okay without in-text attribution, then I suggest that you review the exact wording of both versions again.

@XOR'easter, would that clarify "the difference is between "in-text attribution" and "in-text attribution"," as you mention above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is a clarifying example. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The current text explicitly allows for use of "pseudoscience" in wikivoice. I explained this above. And terms like neo-Nazi that are well-defined should simply be removed from the list; this isn't justification for removing all caution against other terms. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The current text of WTW says nothing about terms being well-defined or not – if you wish to propose such a criteria be added feel free to do so, but no reasonable reading of the old (current) version of MOS:LABEL would support a conclusion that "well-defined" terms are somehow exempt from the restriction. Srey Sros^talk 00:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though there is some room for improvement and I would prefer to summarize those policies here rather than just link to them. It is important to understand that downplaying things that the sources universally treat as fact is another way in which people can introduce their own opinions into articles, and is a common problem on articles that cover topics with broad academic consensus but which individual editors have personal objections to; WP:INTEXT and WP:NPOV are careful to thread this needle. MOS:WTW currently fails to do so, effectively encouraging people to insert their own perspective when it comes to downplaying widely-accepted academic consensuses on eg. racial or cultural issues simply based on their personal gut feeling that there is something wrong with those conclusions. The people opposing also need to grapple with the fact that WP:INTEXT and WP:NPOV already trump MOS:WTW, since core policies have more force than the MOS - in situations where top-quality sources are essentially unanimous in eg. calling an organization neo-nazi or denialist in nature, and there is no reason to think that is controversial among them, we are required to do so in the article voice ourselves, and strictly forbidden from using in-text attribution in a way that would imply it is merely an opinion. WTW is currently incorrect in its implication that it is ever acceptable (let alone required) to use attribution in a case like that. That will not change regardless of the outcome here. Also note that many of the opinions expressed above opposing this change do not actually present a valid rationale - obviously if the sourcing is insufficient to establish something as fact, then WP:INTEXT / WP:NPOV would not support usage in the article voice; that is not a valid reason to allow editors to argue that we must downplay the sources without regard for their quality or what they say, simply based on editors' person objections to the language they use. If you feel the sources are POV or too weak or not unanimous, by all means make that argument; but "we cannot use the term neo-Nazi in the article voice ever, regardless of the quality of the sources regardless of how unanimous they are" (which is what the current wording of WTW falsely implies) is plainly contrary to WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Like. This is very well-put and concisely sums up both the issue at hand and the argument for/implications of the proposed change. Srey Sros^talk 00:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, while noting that most of the Oppose notes either deny that there is a conflict between LABEL and NPOV (and INTEXT, which aligns with NPOV) or imply, if there is in fact a conflict, that the current text of LABEL should establish the preferred principle. Both of these positions seem absurd to me - WP:NPOV has it right and represents a high level of site-wide consensus. LABEL, on the other hand, was expanded in scope during a short discussion of a dozen or so editors, to reach its current form, and has subsequently been used as a shibboleth on behalf of partisan, "my side is NPOV (because I can't see my own biases)" editing. Let's go back to agreed-upon principles, here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • • I will point out that NPOV does not actually explicitly state that when a majority of sources through enduring coverage of a topic agree on a view, that we can present that view in wikivoice without attribution; INTEXT doesn't call to this at all, and requires attribution for all statements that are taken as views from sources. I know it is taken as practice that in such a case we can do this (eg Jonestown as a cult) and we really should actually document when this practice is appropriate, so that we do not have editors cherry picking a few sources and claiming that represents a majority of sources. This is not prescribing new policy but describing what is already done but in a manner that cannot be gamed by those that would want to use LABEL to whitewash away well-established labels but also to prevent overzealous use of labels coming from but a few sources. --Masem (t) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

      You might want to read the bit in INTEXT that says When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view: That is explicitly stating that we can present majority views without attribution. INTEXT says this, but LABEL contains no such language. We wouldn't be here today if LABEL didn't require INTEXT attribution even when INTEXT says not to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as it would encourage viewpoint-laden labeling. We already have too much of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Sure we could remind people of NPOV, but it's a rather squishy constraint compared to what's in the current statement, which is more objective bar for when it's OK to use negative labels. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd by objective you in fact mean "arbitrary", I agree. But I don't see anything remotely "objective" about it, in any other sense of that term. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Which is why I've stated that it would be far better to have either NPOV or INTEXT establish when and how it is appropriate to state a widely-held view in wikivoice without attribution (including for laberls)( that would help tremenmdously. --Masem (t) 13:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• As I have said over the course of the prior discussions, I will support any change that fixes the suggestion that certain terms can never be used without attribution, which is incorrect as a matter of core policy. Any term that is treated as factual by the consensus of the reliable sources must be treated as factual on Wikipedia, as described in e.g. WP:WEIGHT and WP:ASSERT. To use in-text attribution in such circumstances is a violation of neutrality. We, as Wikipedia editors, cannot retroactively decide that the term in question is an opinion, when the sources have already spoken on the matter. If we have sources to say otherwise, that would be another matter - but which statements are opinions and which are facts, for anything even mildly controversial, is something that only seems easy to distinguish when considered from our own perspective. Facts exist, of course, but our method of identifying them is based on the sources, and the current text is saying that some terms cannot be used in wikivoice regardless of what the sources say. Furthermore, this type of universal conclusion necessarily involves original research, because the sources are being set aside in favor of our personal judgement.

The current wording, of course, has no force as written (with respect to attribution) because it cannot override core policy. For that matter, it isn't even consistent with other advice on this same page, such as the use of less absolute wording only one paragraph below in the same context - and then there is also INTEXT, and probably other pages as well. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious, to the extreme if necessary, when a term may be controversial. However, describing this in terms of an absolute prohibition is simply mistaken. Sunrise (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sunrise notified the Fringe theories noticeboard so per WP:APPNOTE ("... It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself ...") I am leaving this note. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, I'd forgotten and I agree this is a case where having a note is probably better. Sunrise (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• OpposeSupport. (Changed to support in principle since I'm reassured wording snits can be cleaned-up later. I appreciate the intention, and agree a fix to the MOS:LABEL would be nice, but this proposal is not the answer. We currently say that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist (without attribution) in the first sentence of his bio because that's right, and in compliance both with NPOV and BLP. As I read it, the proposed wording requires in-text attribution without exception for any apparently contentious label. It would of course be ignored, but drama would increase. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC); amended 02:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: I think reading all of this again has made my brain ache. I'm not clear about your argument differs from those made byUser:Aquillion and User:WhatamIdoing, who have voted support. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Me also. But as a fresh pair of eyes what I see in the proposal is this: "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, if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." So maybe it's just poorly drafted if the intention was to convey otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Alexbrn: and see below, another support with the intention similar to your own, if I'm reading correctly. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think my trouble is the requirement to "comply with" WP:INTEXT. WP:INTEXT isn't a provision (more, a description of something), so cannot be "complied with". To me, this reads as "in text attribution must be used". Whatever, it's a mess. Alexbrn (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: It's the other way around. It's the current version that requires in-text attribution without exception (in which case use in-text attribution), and this proposal is attempting to change that. The proposal to "comply with" WP:In-text attribution does not have such a requirement, because that page explicitly allows for cases where no attribution is used. It is probably not the best wording (perhaps a phrase like "the guidance at" could be added), but I think that can be fixed afterwards, and since this is a relatively minimalist change it is less likely to raise additional issues in a way that derails the RfC. Sunrise (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alexbrn, it really is the other way around. The old wording orders editors to "use in-text attribution", with no exceptions for articles like the one you mention. ⌘ Command+F on this page for the word Godwin and read the example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in wonder you think I'm cool enough to be using a Mac! I can now see the intent, but the drafting implies 100% the opposite; "comply with" WP:INTEXT to me means "use the mechanism described therein". I could get behind the proposal if that was ironed-out. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support.It is an unacceptable situation that on one hand, all reliable sources (reliable for climate science) agree that Paul P. is a climate change denialist, and on the other hand, we cannot write "Paul P. is a climate change denialist" but need to say that Naomi O. and a few hundred other experts called him one, just because some Wikipedia editors, whose only "knowledge" about climate science may well come from denialist outlets like Wall Street Journal, have done WP:OR in their armchairs and decided that 1. "denialist" is a label, that 2. labels are subjective, that 3. subjective terms must be attributed, and that therefore 4. "climate change denialist" must be attributed, QED. This is dogmatic agnosticism, and agnosticism is a POV. And it is a POV closely related to ignorance. If we have to attribute a fact because some Wikipedia authors do not know it is a fact, because they believe it is just an opinion, and because they demand that it be called an opinion and attributed in articles, then the policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR are violated by POV-pushing agnostic editors using this malformed guideline. The guideline needs to stop circumventing policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  On second thought, even if this RfC does not pass, we can ignore MOS/WTW in all the cases where it collides with OR and/or NPOV by saying "policy beats guideline". That would unmask the sentence as a paper tiger. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Editors can, but they shouldn't have to. Conflicts between policies and guidelines are meant to be resolved, not left for the wikilawyers and POV pushers to selectively enforce the one they agree with in each situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ideally, in the case where there is near agreement in the claim that X is a climate change denier, we shouldn't be able to say in wikivoice "X is generally considered to be a climate change denier." With sourcing to 3 or 4 high quality RSes for that to demonstrate. It keeps the label out of a factual tone, but reflects the universal nature of the association without attribution. Problem is that INTEXT requires that attribution, hence why I think we need to focus how to amend INTE T to cover these types of cases where we don't need attribution for near universal agreement on views. --Masem (t) 15:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too many editors are already far too keen on using labels, apparently to disparage individuals with the intention of righting great wrongs. The current text permits the use of labels, but only when the case for doing so is utterly clear, and this clear restriction should be retained. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  apparently to disparage individuals with the intention of righting great wrongs You are casting aspersions. I cannot speak for others, but my goal, for example, is to accurately reflect what reliable sources are saying, without having to write something like According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening. as in WP:INTEXT. Some people are very clearly deniers. Of course it is only clear to WP:CIR users.

  The current text permits the use of labels - but only with attribution: are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removing the requirement that it be used widely by reliable sources. The addition of NPOV is possible, but not removing the text regarding wide use... That's still a majorly important part of this guidance. --Jayron32 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayron32, the main point of the discussion is to stop requiring editors to use INTEXT when INTEXT says not to use INTEXT. Do you have a view on that point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Conflictual "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", sure, "in text attribution" then matters more on policy including WP:GEVAL/WP:YESPOV. In fact, the current text of the MOS also conflicts with policy in this way, as I have previously pointed out at times. Adding "comply with" doesn't help. —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support some change to "in which case use in-text attribution". LABELs do not always express contentious opinions, so insisting that in-text attribution is always required, even when we've already decided that it's appropriate to use one, (e.g. "According to some historians, Mussolini's ideology was "fascist" and "antisemitic".") would make for less neutral and clunkier writing if applied unilaterally. It seems acceptable to use a contentious term either with sufficient attribution (e.g. "Jack Reporter, a media analyst from The Credible Times, characterized President Smith's statements as misogynistic and bigoted.") or when the label so widely and consistently used to the point of being non-controversial (e.g. "The Jonesboro Church of Homeopathic Racial Diagenics was a fundamentalist pseudoscientific neo-nazi death cult founded in 1978."). I don't like the proposed instruction to just "comply with WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT"; it implies the need to read two other P&Gs to actually understand the advice being given by this one. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)\
• Oppose Trying to characterize someone or describe their beliefs in a single word can be very tricky. Any such use in controversial or fringe matters can be oversimplified or misleading. We have no right to do so without sources, and even the use with sources tends to be cherry-picking or selective quotation. To say "almost every thinks" is a research project, not NPOV encyclopedia writing. Such characterizations are dangerous even when applied to beliefs, and a grave BLP hazard when applied to people. The best way is to avoid such characterizations altogether. They are never necessary: if it applies, the article should make it immediately clear. If the articles and its sourcing does not make it clear, then either the article is poorly written or the matter is not obvious. Using any such one-word description is an open invitation to bias. It is also, in a direct practical sense, and invitation to endless argument here about whether it applies. Instead, if we just describe wwhat someone does or says, the reader will interpret. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC) �

  But, on the other hand David Irving is a holocaust denier. Swerving actuality with coyness isn't "NPOV encyclopedia writing" any more than over-egged labelling is. Alexbrn (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course we can and should use characterizations. We use them all the time. Historian, Christian, anti-vaxxer, holocaust denier, pseudoarchaeologist. Avoiding them makes Wikipedia less encyclopedic and can often mean that we avoid saying in plain English what makes the subject most notable and what they are best known for. And of course we need good sources and to treat them carefully from an NPOV viewpoint. We can and should do this, although we sometimes fail. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  What the problem is on WP right now is that editors tend to want to rush to apply these labels when at least a handful of RSes are using them, as that helps to serve a role in the current cultural conflict to make sure that those people and groups are documented that way when RSes support that. Someone is called a far-right extremist by sources? Editors are going to make sure that's included. That's not necessarily an issue by itself, but what is the current problem, and why this RFC change is not well-thought out, is that we have far too many rushing to insert such language on the first sign of its usage (when we should wait for RECENTISM to pass and make sure that such labeling is an enduring part of how the media cover that person or group), and that we have editors often stretching and cherry-picking for sources rather than waiting for labels to fall out "naturally" from broad and enduring coverage about a person or group. That's the logic why we can fairly call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist or David Irving a holocaust denier, because we have the volume of sources with enduring coverage to support those labels, and in a manner that we should be able to say those in wikivoice without attribution (though we should of course explain why that is the case in some depth). But I've seen cases at BLP/N where only two or three sources are the only ones to support a label, and some editors feel that's enough to state that in Wikivoice, which is a major problem. We need far better guidance of when enough sources exist to use a label in the first place, and then when both wide-spread and enduring use of a label can be considered to be sufficient to be said without attribution, similar to other widespread commonly held viewpoints. --Masem (t) 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Then the pasage should refer to WP:RECENTISM in the way you just explained it and not bluntly demanding those words must be attributed in text. If we followed LABEL as currently worded, Irving would not be a holocaust denier in the article, he would be "called a holocaust denier by Alice, Bob, and so on". Fortunately, people ignored that specific rule when writing the Irving article.

  Even the examples on when to use in-text attribution in WP:INTEXT point in that direction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's why this is still an issue at a higher level. NPOV or INTEXT should explain how and when we should treat masa agreement on a viewpoint as a statement in wikivoice w/o attribution. Using labels is one example of this stance, but there's other viewpoints that are beyond label that would apply as well (eg Mozart being one of the greatest pianists). Sure, LABEL can be more explicit, but the change needs to be really higher up for broader considerations. --Masem (t) 05:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't this have been publicized at CENT? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons cited by Masem, the proposed language is the wrong way to go with a revision, and it is more likely than not to have undesirable effects. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Crossroads and Masem and others. Nearly all of the "support" arguments are strawmen, describing imaginary "problems" that don't actually exist; a couple of the supporters have been honest about why they want this change, and I strongly oppose allowing those courses of action. A few points. 1. Most of y'all (with exceptions) don't seem to fully grasp the difference between "fact" and "opinion". These categories are not fluid. Climate-change denialist, Mussolini being a fascist (the man INVENTED the word, for crying out fucking loud!), Hitler being a nazi, the American Nazi party (nazi is short for national socialist, so national socialist party is by its own name NAZI), are not opinions. They never could be nor ever will be. Sexual deviant, pervert, extremist, racist, X-phobe, anti-X, 99% of the time wicked, righteous, etc are opinions, and even if every last person in the entire world were to agree on an opinion, it will still be an opinion. 2. All of this polemic grandstanding about now the current guideline does not allow under any circumstances for us to say that, say, Mussolini is a fascist, or whatever, is pure hogwash. Like every single policy and guideline, this one says at the top to be used with common sense, and exceptions apply. So, it sounds to me as though (and this is speculation, so I may be wrong), the REAL problem is WP:POINTy editors in various articles ("If we can't call qanon a cult, then neither can we call Jonestown!" or maybe "if we can't say that these BLPs are X-phobic, we can't call Hitler antisemitic"). If that is what's going on, then a better solution would be for admins to grow a pair and start blocking editors for being POINTy. POINTiness is disruptive, and it's not difficult to spot, and AGF has limits. Instead of making new rule upon new rule, start enforcing the rules that already exist. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:A0B5:D795:64C8:8B8A (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Re: Most of y'all (with exceptions) don't seem to fully grasp the difference between "fact" and "opinion". These categories are not fluid. - among all the claims made in this rather wide-ranging discussion, that one is very clearly simply one editor's "opinion", or even expression of feeling, unsupported by evidence of any kind. The idea that "Fascist" could be a factual statement while "antifascist" is necessarily a matter of opinion - and that these distinctions are not fluid} - could only be proposed by someone inexperienced in 20th-century epistemology (and, arguably, little acquainted with consensus reality itself). Newimpartial (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Good thing nobody has actually proposed such a fascist/antifascist asymmetry. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • You must read anti-X, ahem, differently. It was an element in the dichotomy the IP proposed. Newimpartial (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Okay. It came right after "X-phobe", so I only thought of the "anti-trans" example which kicked off all this, "antisemitic" as they mentioned, and other "anti-immutable-characteristic" type labels, not major political categories. I guess they could clarify this. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Don't analyse my choice of examples too deeply :P. Tbh, when I wrote that, I had inferred based on what I had read thus far on this page that the impetus for this proposal was widespread POINTiness by tendentious editors preventing things like Jonestown being called a cult or Mussolini being called a fascist because LABEL prevented them from being able to apply their choice smear to the BLPs of their ideological opponents. Now that I've read more (and it does take a while to read through these mountains upon mountains of text), I understand that all of that discussion about Jonestown was all academic, i.e., apparently no one has any problem with that article itself, only with the fact that the guideline isn't written to accomodate every single use case for every article. (To be fair, I DID say I was making an interference and that I could very well have been wrong). But 99% of this discussion has veered off into academic philosophical debates that have nothing to do with the actual disputes that prompted this in the first place, which I am not so sure that most of those voting "support" here would actually support in those specific cases. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Contrary to the aspersions you're casting, I don't think Support !voters are all WP:ACTIVIST WP:DIVAs aiming to WP:POINTedly WP:RGW and WP:BLUDGEON WP:BLPs with WP:POV MOS:LABELs without WP:MOPs WP:BPing them for WP:DE. I can only speak for myself, though. My grandstanding hogwash polemic strawman is an argument that when obvious exceptions to a rule exist, the rule should give clear guidance on when to break it (and therefore, when not to). The main concern here is updating the MOS to reflect actual community consensus on when to use in-text attribution. Wikivoice should consistently state facts as facts and opinions as opinions, regardless of whether they contain contentious labels, therefore MOS:LABEL should be consistent with the guidance given by WP:INTEXT and WP:NPOV.

  I don't think the proposed change is the exact right way to do this, but I don't think it actually impacts whether to include contentious labels, which is what the Oppose !votes you cited seem to take issue with. As I see it, "if used at all" still strongly (and rightly) advocates for doing so only when it is due and neutral. Therefore the Real Problem you're discussing here ("Won't somebody please think of the POV-pushers?"), while valid, seems unrelated to the outcome of this RfC.

  The argument you've raised is actually equally effective for both sides: since you agree that there are "common sense" exceptions to the requirement for in-text attribution, an WP:ACTIVIST could just as easily argue that "We can call Jonestown a cult, therefore we can call Qanon a cult. Facts are facts, so WP:IAR." Bad-faith editors will push POV no matter what. That's all the more reason to actually nail down when to apply "common sense". RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  No, most support voters are certainly not activists - they've just, IMO, gotten themselves thoroughly worked up over an imagined problem that, AFAICT, does not actually exist (nearly all the debate has been over hypothetical examples of EXCEPTIONAL cases, none of which articles actually suffer from the hypothetical problems being argued over). But this change was proposed specifically because certain editors want to call certain BLPs and organisations "anti-trans" without attribution, and they think LABEL is the only thing standing in their way. Whether it is or isn't, and regardless of the eventual outcome of the content issue, it is pretty much assured that if LABEL is changed, a BATTLEGROUND will ensue at every one of those articles, which is an enormous waste of editor time and energy and is generally disruptive. (These aren't ASPERSIONS, either, those editors have been quite open wrt to their motivations for trying to change this guideline). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is nonsense. I am at the present time engaged in a LABEL-related dispute that has exactly nothing to do with referring to anyone as "anti-trans", with attribution or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, bad-faith people will POV push no matter what, but that is exactly why we should not enable that behavior or destroy a tool that can be used to stop such behavior. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sort of support in principle but couldn't this be accomplished by simply changing in which case use in-text attribution to in which case follow best practices for when to use in-text attribution or something along those lines? Whether in-text attribution is absolutely required seems the central point of the change, but opposition seems to be reading more into the proposed text (perhaps rightly). If there are 50 sources about a subject, and 49 use a given label, I think there's broad consensus that Wikipedia should use that label without naming the 49 sources or creating the appearance of disagreement on the applicability of the label. As Whatamidoing and others point out, a style guideline should not fall out of step with core content policies like NPOV. And yet it happens frequently that people cite this style guideline as though it trumps policy -- and who can blame people for doing that, when it says right there "use in-text attribution"? So yes, something should change. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that would remove the problem. If it is written like that, David Irving can stay a holocaust denier in Wikivoice without violating this guideline. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'd strongly support a smaller change along these lines. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  A smaller change like this could work, but "best avoided unless used widely by reliable sources to describe the subject" should be removed. We need to be able to include widely-held opinions such as "he was criticized for making comments that were viewed as racist" (with attribution, of course) that meet due weight even if sources don't use the label in their own voice. To be honest I have reservations about treating "value laden" or "contentious" labels differently at all: We should always follow NPOV when describing a subject, regardless of whether sources treat it positively or negatively. The whole concept of shying away from negative labels smacks of bias. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why remove the "best avoided..."? It doesn't say "can't" so your concern that a widely-held opinion couldn't be included is addressed (it can be) but still cautions that this is something that needs to meet a higher standard than something like, "he is widely considered to be tall for a footballer" or other non-value laden opinion/subjective claim. If a number of sources say, "he was criticized for making comments that were viewed as racist" we can say the same in Wiki voice. That is the wiki article can say, "he was criticized for making comments that were viewed as racist[source/sources]. That wouldn't be a value-laden label concern, rather it's directly repeating what the RSs say. It would only be a question of DUE, rather than LABEL. What you can't do is take a RS statement like, "his remarks were viewed as insensitive" and change that a wiki statement, "his remarks were racist" or "his remarks were viewed as racist" since both would be making the source's claim more extreme. The problem with "always follow NPOV" is it can run afoul of BLP and we the editors can't be certain we are always accurately assessing a NPOV. We can try but we won't always get it right and thus it makes sense to err on the side of caution when applying some types of claims. Springee (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying that without WP:LABEL in its current form, there would be no policy or guideline requiring "his remarks were viewed as racist" instead of "his remarks were racist"? –dlthewave ☎ 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  If sources say "his remarks were viewed as..." then we cannot change that to "his remarks were..." because that is not accurate to what the source is saying. Springee (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Except there becomes high potential for origina researchby editors with the more subjective labels. Editrs interpreting someone known to be against gay marriage and labeling them as homophobic, for example. We can document the widely noted stance that person has without use of the label, LABEL doesn't stop that and that's still in line with NPOV/DUE, but we definitely should not be introducing labels that are not widely used themselvs ad paricular based on editor interpretation. --Masem (t) 04:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  A more likely case, at the present time, would be editors pushing to label a lesbian transphobic for refusing to accept biological males as sexual partners. I cannot read minds, but I can only guess that the motivation for the rush to use labels is that if they actually described what their targets actually did or said to cause their branding, that most readers wouldn't actually consider the offence so grievous. So, better to shame them with a demonising buzzword label than write the facts, yea? Then we can be assured our enemies shall be destroid! </sarcasm>2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have seen accusations like this thrown around so often, and yet I have literally never seen an edit matching this description proposed in article space. It is almost as though one side in a public debate were trying to engineer a Moral panic by means of hyperbole.

  Also, the idea that Wikipedia should under all circumstances offer examples, e.g., for why Lauren Southern is referred to as a "white nationalist" or documenting Graham Linehan's anti-transgender activism, would (1) frequently inhibit the writing of succinct, encyclopaedic lead sections and (2) encourage FALSEBALANCE and the presentation of fact as opinion, in some cases.

  On the other hand, if readers can reach the end of the appropriate section and still not understand what (the subjects) actually did or said to cause their branding, then that would be bad encyclopaedic writing, but these disputes are typically limited to the language used in the lead section. The main body provides the necessary context, in general, and I seldom see LABEL disputes in these areas. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  See the section above about anti trans vs transphobic as one case of editors trying to classify on their own. This is also why we do not include BLP in categories involving labels per BLPCAT. I have see it also multiple times at BLPN and NPOVN.

  dealing with labels in ledes is a whole other matter, but needless to say, the body must have the support for it. The body should expand on the why, of course. And being careful with attribution is absolutely not a false balance. Mass agreement from sources in the short term doesn't make a viewpoint a fact, just a widely accepted viewpoint. WP should not present such material that hadn't stood the test of time as fact, but we should have ways to speak it that it clear that it is really the only viewpoint from sources without attribution (eg "widely considered" language). --Masem (t) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Masem, I don't see anything in the explanatory supplement WP:RECENTISM to validate your concern about perspectives that haven't stood the test of time.

  What I have seen from defenders of the current text of LABEL, in this discussion and elsewhere, is less consistent with RECENTISM and with actual encyclopaedic criteria, e.g., following the best sources available. The defense seems more to reflect a degree of comfort with the journalistic practices of, say, 30 years ago, and a good deal of scholarly writing, say, 50 years ago, which went to great lengths to avoid the direct use of "labels" and preferred to take the risk of - or overtly encourage - FALSEBALANCE and "both sides" reporting rather than making direct statements about the topics covered. This is no longer a common practice in either journalism or scholarship, but I have seen frequent defenses of such writing strategies here, at least for 21st century topics. I don't see how this would follow the best practices in any of the relevant fields, though, which is what WP editors are supposed to attempt to do. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  We can still follow the best sources possible while still keeping in mind the nature of journalism today and what tends to happen in the short term of 24/7 news coverage, which simply means giving more deference to attribution and avoiding absolutes in wikivoice while capturing the predominate mainstream views. The point about Recentism is that in the short term, news reports are not going to be looking at topics from a disinterested view, moreso nowadays with the rise of accountability journalism style reporting. They are trying to be more persuasive rather than simply reiterating the news in a disinterested fashion. We just have to know that exists - not even that there is a whole section of media we have "cut off" from being R - to understand that we should use caution when reporting any viewpoint made in recent news as anything more that an attributed statement. Only with time (years) where more disinterested sources come about to better look at situations from a secondary source review is when we can see how opinions have cemented to a point that we can say those in wikivoice without attribution, assuming that is the long term near majority view. But in the short term, even if nearly all major sources seem to agree on a viewpoint, we should be considering that as too volatile at the time to be expressing in wikivoice and instead simply cautionary use attribution. This is generic to anything dealing with viewpoints, including but not limited to labels. We should be per Npov taking a far more conservative/middle ground approach rather than give shortterm opinions undue weight. --Masem (t) 21:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  No opinion on scholarship, but journalism has absolutely been going downhill in this regard over the past 5-10 years at minimum, with the rise of clickbait and the incentive to drive outrage to be shared on social media, to say nothing of the massive polarization going on. As Masem notes, a lot of journalists now openly reject striving for neutrality in favor of "accountability" or as I've seen it called, "moral clarity" - in other words, slanting it based on their own particular values. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, you and Masem simply share an aesthetic preference for one style of journalistic writing over another; I have seen no evidence that the type 2 error that could potentially result from the newer style of writing (on the part of the best RS) is any more common or as damaging in its effects as the type 1 error that would typically result from the older style. My own view is that it is now possible - even with second-tier sources - to more accurately situate their perspectives and motivations so that the correspondence between source perspective and consensus reality is easier to assess and problematic biases easier to compensate for than in the old, "both sides", rhetorically neutral style. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Except that per core policies we should avoid too much inclusion of commentary and opinion near the time of an event and instead wait to include such from more distant and more secondary sources (per WP:BALANCE and WP:NOT#NEWS). Our goal in the short-term should be to document a controversy from a disinterested standpoint, giving no judgement to who is right or wrong. Even in the case where there's only one real documentable side of a controversy, we should still describe that as a attributed viewpoint, and not conclude as fact in wikivoice. This of course covers the use of labels as well as other views. Even with old-style reporting we'd have to be careful about that, but newer accountability journalism makes it a harder problem that we have to write around. --Masem (t) 01:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Masem, while many of us share NOTNEWS-type concerns, your reading of what that requires - in terms of distance and sourcing - is not widely held. We have cases like Lauren Southern with several years' distance from key events and quality academic sourcing, where nonetheless a small minority of editors like yourself seem to want *much* more distance and sourcing than policy or community consensus actually requires. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Four to five years (from 2017) is in no way "several years". We're talk 10 to 20, at least. And based on the responses here, it is clear I'm very much not alone here in these concerns (and that's not considering when we get responses from "the peanut gallery") The attitude that is expressed by editors like you make Wikimedia involved in the current cultural wars when we are supposed to be sticking a disinterested view and simply reporting in an impartial voice. This is the crux of every problem here, editors writing in a manner that , backed by the tone in RSes, are trying to back righting great wrongs since media is critical of such people or groups, WP should be able to too, but that's not how it works. We can discuss this media view, but we cannot take it as fact in the short term. --Masem (t) 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, conflating several years with one to two decades is completely unreasonable. If we were to take that approach with any BLP entry, or even any non-BLP yet controversial event, then we wouldn't have any content more recent than 2002-2012.

I also want to address something said earlier; Even in the case where there's only one real documentable side of a controversy, we should still describe that as a attributed viewpoint, and not conclude as fact in wikivoice. That is a near perfect definition for false balance. If there is only one side, reflected in what we consider reliable sources, then to do as suggested would result in promotion of fringe theories or views, if not outright conspiracy theories in Wikivoice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that we can't include recent content, just that in considering how it should be included we should be far more cautious, consider material to be more primary than secondary and written from a non-disinterested view, so that our summary should consider those possible biases and work to write neutrally around them. For all purposes, that means writing with attribution, not omitting material, though we have tended to make articles become laundry lists of negative content sourced to cherry-picked materials at times, rather than focusing on more broadly shared opinions.

There's a difference in how things like conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are handled compared to simply things like subjective labels, in that there are usually objective or other non-subjective metrics to demonstrate why they are conspirary theories or pseudoscience. And thus I would agree when such items are suitable demonstrated as false, treating them with doubt is creating a false balance. Whereas with purely subjective views, there's no objective evidence to demand one side (likely the side represented in RS) to be taken as "right". We can present that side as the majority view in the short term, but it should still be presented as a viewpoint, and that in no way is a false balance; that's taking a disinterested approach in writing about viewpoints on a topic. Absence of any contesting viewpoint in RSes does not mean that a viewpoint is lacking any contested view, and we have to use both common sense and broader knowledge beyond what our RSes simply say to be able to summarize what the RSes say in a appropriately neutral, impartial and dispassionate tone. --Masem (t) 04:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, you may be not alone in how you would like to treat the current century in terms of RECENTISM, but your view is certainly not supported by very many editors, by the WP community, or by WP:RECENTISM, the relevant (?) explanatory supplement.

And while you may avow a difference in how things like conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are handled compared to simply things like subjective labels, I think you are avowing a distinction that you and your allies do not make in practice. I believe it was Springee I've seen to argue that people speading (demonstrably false) conspiracy theories (and labelled very generally as "conspiracy theorists" by high-quality sources) should not be referred to as such in wikivoice. In the case of Lauren Southern also, we have a figure making the best-known documentary endorsing the white nationalist Great replacement conspiracy theory, as well-souced in quality - including academic - sources, but editors invoke MANDY details as justification to remove "white nationalist". I don't know how you intend to maintain a distinction between conspiracy theory and labels, but what actually happens is that many editors use the existing text to support edits against NPOV that would have Wikipedia present facts as though they were (contested) opinions, in cases where they are neither opinions nor contested. What we are actually dealing with in many of these cases is value-laden facts, and the effort some editors are making in this discussion to deny that reality is nearly mind-blowing to me. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not to remove labels when they have been used frequently, but when we are still in the realm of RECENTISM (as definitely would be the case of Southern) and where it is not clear if a label is near-universally used (a simple google news search shows only about 10% of the articles related to Southern include "white nationalist" but this is a quick and dirty check and by far not meant as conclusive), then we should not be rushing to state it as fact, but instead have some form of attribution, which for Southern would likely be phrase "broadly considered as a white nationalist" in a brief statement. That still captures the DUE aspect but keeps WP in the appropriate dispassionate, impartial tone that reflects the frequency of the label in the sources.

I do agree that LABEL should not be used to remove attributed labels that have such high frequency of usage as in the case of Southern, simply that they should be handled as attributed viewpoints rather than fact. But this again points back to the fact that NPOV should have something that describes thresholds related to when a frequently shared viewpoint is DUE for inclusion and how to summarize attribution without having to name 20+ sources, and then the threshold and conditions when we can forgo treating that as a viewpoint and state it as wikivoice. This would satisfy this LABEL issue as well since it defers to the NPOV policy aspect. --Masem (t) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I really like Crossroads analysis of this topic. This change would be utilized by POV pushers to try and place contentious labels for people, particularly in the leads of BLP's. Labels are vague and have mixed meanings, and that's why we should be highly cautious when using them. They should only ever be used when the subject is explicitly labeled with those labels in many RS. That's what the current longstanding text of this guideline says, and that's the way it should remain. Guidelines are supposed to be helpful explanations of policies and this proposal would only be unhelpful and vague for contributors, by saying labels must abide by comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. It's not clear what that entails. We should not be trying to make it easier to use contentious labels, and that's what this does. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per numerous others above, especially WhatamIdoing. This seems rather straightforward to me. The current language conflicts with higher-order PAG. That creates confusion. The confusion should be cleared up. The OP's suggested language is an improvement in that regard. Folks who are worried about what unscrupulous POV-pushers will do should devote their energy to countering the work of unscrupulous POV-pushers, who will continue to unscrupulously POV-push regardless of what is written here. The MOS should be geared toward good-faith editors looking for good-faith advice on how to write articles. Generalrelative (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose First, I tend to consider labels that 90% agree with to be information and labels that only 70% or 51% agree with to be opinions at best. It looiks to me that that proposal would make it harder to put the 90% in as fact and easier to put in the "70%"/ "51%" in as fact, the latter because NPOV is so gameable / outdated in this area. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  In the Asch conformity experiments, 36,8% of the participants used a similar definition of "fact" as you do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a completely different situation. My post was not about objective facts. It was about subjective use of a variable-meaning word. To use my previous example, If you say that Antartica has a cold climate, "cold" conveys information because such complies with an overwhelmingly accepted meaning of a cold climate. If you say that Chicago has a cold climate, you are not conveying information because the usage does comply with an overwhelminly accepted meaning. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh. My mistake. I should have said "information" instead of "fact". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  No sweat. Actually I think your term was accurate for the study. The study was on a case where objective WP:Accuracy exists which includes "The metrics of a correct answer are agreed on, and the answer is overwhelmingly considered to be known." (but participants were led to giving an objectively wrong answer) Statements of the applicability of a variable-meaning word fall short of that, but in some cases still provide useful information. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Part of the contention here is based on a false premise that WhatamIdoing and several others have assumed as gospel, that "we are required to report on whatever is in widely reported in reliable sources, no matter what it is." That is not actually true. Do remember that, our sources are NOT encyclopaedias. They contain some content that is appropriate to include in an encyclopædia, and they also contain content that is not. And newspaper content that would not be encyclopaedic does not magically become so simply because multiple RS news outlets have all re-reported the same story(ies). That, and these labels are not helpful. Again, which is more informative: "Hitler was an antisemite" or "Hitler had 6 million Jewish men, women, and children killed on account of their being Jewish." And there's no need to have both: the former is an undisputable consequence of the latter. Readers aren't idiots. Editors aren't, neither. I say again, there's zero "confusion" here: all of the "confusion" y'all been harping about, AFAICT, is hypothetical confusion of hypothetical editors, with articles that are extreme exceptions to the norm given as examples of articles that could hypothetically suffer as a result of this supposed "confusion", but they're not. Classic case of searching for a problem. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:2918:9176:1627:2097 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed. Some editors seem determined to prejudice the reader by including (sourced) labels in articles on controversial subjects, or they find it more important to apply the conclusory label than to provide actual information to the reader. The reader deserves to learn the underlying facts that may have caused a preponderance of sources to apply the label. The ideal revision to MOS would make it clear that such labels are a uniquely uninformative type of POV editing, substituting conclusions for facts, and that such labels should not appear in Wikivoice. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  I believe the relevant place to make that argument would be at WT:NPOV, since it would seem to involve a change in the (core) NPOV policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – We don't need to open a loophole for tendentious editors to start adding labels and coming here for support. Endwise's example, perhaps thrown out there as an over-the-top example, actually could occur:

  Paul Schäfer (1921 – 24 April 2010) was a sadistic, racist sexual pervert and child abusing Nazi, and founder and leader of Colonia Dignidad, a commune of 300 immigrant Germans in southern Chile.

Nothing there that isn't supported by sources, but I don't think that's where we want to be going in articles. Let's not give them a sea lion leg to stand on. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• As I see it, this is about closing a loophole where this conflicts with NPOV. This style guideline currently requires attribution for labels where content policies do not (regardless of coverage), allowing [sea lions] to argue that we cannot describe things in Wikipedia's voice even when reliable sourcing is unanimous. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is definitely a point of debate on WP and which needs to be explored more at NPOV when and where it is appropriate to consider when attribution can be dropped for when viewpoints have near-universal agreements. This is very much a point of division across the board. Just as it can be used by those that want to whitewash negative information away, the lack of specificity of how we should handle such cases also allows some editors to push on every negative coatrack they can find onto certain topics which is also against the theory of NPOV. We need to find the point of balance first at NPOV. --Masem (t) 19:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The only time I would use a value-laden label would be if there was a consensus in expert sources. For example, the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. But media frequently use terms such as paranoid, terrorist, conspiracy theory, fascist, insurrection or treason where experts do not. Having a bachelor's degree in journalism from Columbia and working for the New York Times does not mean one's opinions are as authoritative as someone who has a PHD in the subject, teaches at a university and has published academic articles and textbooks. TFD (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you're aware that WP:LABEL entirely prohibits using "terrorist" without attribution even when there is consensus among reliable sources? –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The guideline says, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," which is the phrasing used in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.The term terrorist for example is used without intext attribution several times in the Terrorism article. In particular, it would be justified to ignore the guideline if following it meant violating a policy. The problem with the term terrorist is that it is used by governments to describe enemy insurgents or even states they dislike, while allied insurgents are referred to as freedom fighters. So for example the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement was categorized as a terrorist group by the Bush administration when it sought foreign support on the war on terror, but was reclassified by the Trump administration when China became seen as an adversary. As explained by an article in FP, the moves "were not motivated by ETIM’s reality but instead were largely about the U.S. position on other issues."[1] TFD (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: Having a bachelor's degree in journalism from Columbia and working for the New York Times does not mean one's opinions are as authoritative as someone who has a PHD in the subject, teaches at a university and has published academic articles and textbooks - a number of participants in this discussion have opposed the use of terms in wikivoice in specific cases - citing - even when there is no dispute in RS about the applicability of a term and even when quality, academic sources use the term about the relevant person or organization. This debate isn't especially about the role of journalists... Newimpartial (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: there is no dispute in RS, per your own stretched definition of what "no dispute" means, which, guess what, is disputed. Since you're bringing up content disputes, why not come right out and say what label it is this guideline is preventing you from adding to what article? And disclose what that person/group actually did or said that prompted those sources to use those labels. Since you're bringing up other participants have "opposed" in "specific cases" - what reason could there be for concealing the specific facts of those specific cases of which you refer to? If your depiction be truly accurate, surely the facts would speak for themselves, yea? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1449:4A9E:866:5F64 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The instances most on my mind at the moment are "alt right" and "white nationalist" in relation to Lauren Southern - the former of which I support in wikivoice and the latter of which I support with attribution. Springee has opposed both labels, although academic sourcing is available for both and no RS dispute "alt right" in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

But as I've suggested above, a rough preliminary source survey (google news) shows that only about 10% of the sources that talk about Southern support those labels, which is definitely against using those labels as fact. And of course, as we're talking something only 5-some years, trying to take commentary and opinion as fact is also against the concept of RECENTISM. If we were 20 years out, where Southern was no longer in the news, then maybe we can consider that as fact but as long she is still relatively a news topic, RECENTISM applies.

I will say that we do need to avoid the MANDY argument that Springee keeps bringing up. At least in the state of her current article, there are a few soundbites of her own words (reported by RSes) that explain her stance, so we are not begging the MANDY question. But I will still point that one must remember that the scope of allowed RSes expand when RSOPINION is considered in articles like this. Obviously there are still many cavaets about whose opinions are included but this doesn't require the original source to be an RS itself, and that means it can include opinions from recognized people that may side with Southern. Whether such sources exist, that would require a source survey (the same that should be done to try to justify what attribution to use for the labels). Remember that per NPOV we cannot write in a judgmental voice, and that's what your asking us to do by these conditions. If you can prove that's the only way to write about Southern well after she's no longer in the news, then you're good, but until you can, we have to take it out of wikivoice. --Masem (t) 04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In general we can't draw conclusions from what sources do not say. This is the "most sources talking about the Earth don't mention that it's round, so Wikipedia cannot say that" argument. Sources sometimes don't say things because it's obvious, sometimes because they don't consider that aspect of the topic, and so on. In Wikipedia terms, if something is not in serious dispute, it's a true fact per WP:ASSERT – though of course WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

We as editors should be aware of what the larger situation is around a topic including what positions and other factors are happening that may be stuff we cannot document or include due to RS issues. Specifically we need to be aware that with the current left-leaning bias of the media that a rather non-trivial proportion of right-leaning views have been left off the table. So just because there seems to be no disagreement in the mainstream and reliable sources, if we know that there is this disagreement in a non-fringe manner, we should not pretend there is no disagreement out there. That's again why RECENTISM is important here because as time progresses, we can look back at events from sources that are less disinterested and thus will better just what views are the most important to discuss. --Masem (t) 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, how would we know that there is this disagreement in a non-fringe manner, unless reliable sources tell us so?

Also, your version of RECENTISM appears to amount to, "in the future, scholars will interpret the sources from the early 21st century has having a left-wing bias". That looks like WP:CRYSTAL to me, not RECENTISM properly understood. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Because we are not sitting blind in an ivory tower, we know there's other viewpoints out there on ongoing and current controversies or figures that are controversial, even if RSes are mum on them. This is why we cannot, while such figures are presently in the news, blindly accept viewpoints reported by RSes as facts in wikivoice regardless of absence of alternate views. The point on RECENTISM is related - once we're well beyond the point that the topic is actively in the news or a point of controversy, we can then consider what the most recent sources, displaced from the time of that point of controversy, has said about it, and consider if they agree on certain viewpoints. If at that point, they all agree on the use of labels and omit any other viewpoints, then we're probably in the clear to use the label in wikivoice without attribution. --Masem (t) 13:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Od}As I understand it, this is an argument that WP editors should be paying attention to views that are not recognized within RS (or that are acknowledged with RS as false information), should perform OR assessments of these views as non-fringe and should then insist on attribution for judgements about which all RS agree. Do you believe there is some policy basis for this, Masem? I don't see any grounding for it in RECENTISM, and it seems to fly directly against WP:V, NPOV and NOR core policies.

Honestly, this feels the same as the argument new editors raise every few months at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory: that all the RS are wrong, the non-RS sources are right and WP's core policies should be turned on their head because certain editors feel qualified to second-guess the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's all factors under the tone and style required under WP:IMPARTIAL. I do want to stress that the wording of IMPARTIAL suggests that we include all viewpoints, but this is not what I'm getting at with these non-reported viewpoints. (I am absolutely not arguing for forcing the false balance or the like.) If we know they exist in non-fringe proportions beyond what RSes say, we should not be deeming what the RSes say as fact, and thus just add the necessary attribution or some type of wholesale state ("widely considered", etc.) to keep that viewpoint out of Wikivoice and stay within the bounds of IMPARTIAL. Heck, even in the case where we are aware of absolutely no counterview to a viewpoint repeated often in mainstream sources, but it still remains a viewpoint on a current ongoing story, we should still be careful and use some type of attribution in the short term. It's just this attitude that "if it doesn't exist in RSes, it doesn't exist for purposes of Wikipedia" that is harmful - we need to be fully cognizant of the events of ongoing controversies even if we're not going to include them, because treating RSes as immutable words-of-god in the midst of the controversy is not appropriate at all. To be impartial we need to be aware of where the RSes sit in the larger picture. --Masem (t) 14:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything in IMPARTIAL suggesting that WP should take into account perspectives that are not reliably documented as existing. This seems to me to reflect a rather serious epistemological question: how can we be fully cognizant of the events of ongoing controversies beyond what can be found in RS? Is this a call to WP:OR? Personally, my epistemological realism leads me to question whether this larger picture exists at all, and to doubt whether it would be in any way knowable even if it were to exist. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, this is a position against NPOV (to reflect "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."), and to my find fails to show an understanding of what an encyclopedia fundamentally is. We are just a handy summary of what's been published on topics; not an attempt to unearth "reality" (even Masem's "reality"). Franky, such obsessive pushing of this anti-Wikipedia stance, in multiple fora, is I think becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

All this comes down to is the question: when can we express labels in Wikivoice with attribution? I agree there are conditions when this can happen and that is partially dependent on when a label is used by a significant proportion of RSes, but there are other factors that should be considered, which is what this debate has been about. Core is that we should never rush to wikivoice-label any topic in the short-term regardless the number of sources that do it, but that's absolutely appropriate in the long-term. --Masem (t) 14:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, are you disputing Springee's conclusion above, Note that most of the sources I found called her either far or alt right in their own voice? If so, what was your methodology-I can't seem to find it described. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Brief phone reply here. Masem, to be clear I'm my comments related to MANDY and not specific to LABEL. I replied to a MANDY comment in a separate paragraph with a separate signature and indentation when commenting about a LABEL question. NI missed that and assumed I was associating the two. I'm not. NI is also not doing a great job with presenting my arguments. They have taken a single, brief edit and taken it as a complete scope of my views. NI also didn't mention that they argued and edited for including both terms in wiki voice but I will grant they came to the correct conclusion on white nationalism after a long talk page discussion. As for alt-right and far-right if we take them to mean the same thing they are both very common but not universal. I think they were about evenly split. While overlapping I don't think they mean the same thing per Wikipedia articles. Personally I do think it would be better to attribute all of them but I'm not overly interested in that fight and far right isn't as value laden as white nationalist. Finally, NI it might be helpful if you showed some other example cases. I believe you have been involved in some LGBTQ cases, would any of those make good examples? Springee (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

While not strictly a LABEL-based discussion, the argumentation here, from last year, about Graham Linehan's relationship to transgender issues is probably one of the more relevant ones. There was also this 2020 RfC on a heading within the same article concerning the same issue; I doubt that it in particular is worth editors' reading time, but it does include LABEL debate among its many, many digressions, so I would feel remiss not to point it out. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Going back to a core part of LABEL, we should not be using labels in the first place if only a handful of sources use the term, while it is clear on the other side that if after time, nearly all sources use the label, we should be able to use that label in wikivoice w/o attribution. There's thresholds when the use of a label with attribution becomes appropriate in the first place, and another when we can say it without attribution, but all that depends on thoroughly going through the sources and seeing how frequently sources that are in-depth about the topic use that label. That's the methodology that I suggest needs to be done, and I think that differs from what Springee has said, which is saying that for sources that do use a label, they use one of two labels, but that doesn't account for the frequency. --Masem (t) 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to address this specific point of this reply. It's just this attitude that "if it doesn't exist in RSes, it doesn't exist for purposes of Wikipedia" that is harmful - we need to be fully cognizant of the events of ongoing controversies even if we're not going to include them, because treating RSes as immutable words-of-god in the midst of the controversy is not appropriate at all. That seems to fly in the face of what WP:RS states at the end of the first paragraph: If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. And also what is stated in WP:REPUTABLE: This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

If a reliable source for a piece of information does not exist, then we are beholden, rightly or wrongly, by policy to whatever reliable sources say on the subject. If you feel that is harmful to the project as a whole, then opening an RfC to change this policy is the only way to address that harm. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing I've said goes against those; it is simply recognizing when we should defer to using attribution when we know that broadly there is material that is of controversy going on at the current time. I've said above that we do not have to force the false balance if one side of the controversy is only covered outside the RSes (which is what you are inferring that I suggest we do). Simply that we should be be blinding ourselves to an ivory tower of only the acceptable RSes and assuming their viewpoint is the only viewpoint that exists as to treat it as fact in describing a current controversy. Far down the road in time, when there's no current controversy on the topic, then we can take the more ivory tower approach. --Masem (t) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes the side of established scholarship. Views not in accord with that must be contextualized as deviant. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally views scholarship as the most reliable sourcing, it doesn't only use scholarship. If that was the standard many articles would need to be removed as lacking sourcing. Anyway, I don't think Masem's position violates the RS guideline. Certainly we have sources we consider stronger than others but RS also says context matters. An unfortunate part of RSP is the idea that we can neatly classify all soruces as reliable or not. In actuality we should be spending more time asking if a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. Certainly a source like National Review may be very good for providing a dissenting view or arguing why a label shouldn't apply. However, over time too many people tried to use so-so sources for questionable claims and we decided those sources just aren't any good. It's one thing to say we aren't going to use such sources to interpret climate change data. It's quite a bit different to say we don't need to listen to them when deciding if a new law is "anti-gay" or not or to what degree. Springee (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WP in fact does not take sides. We report the majority views per DUE/WEIGHT, which is not in question, but we report that as a viewpoint of the majority, and require substantial coverage of minority or fringe viewpoints from RS to include those as well per FRINGE, but per NPOV and INTEXT this all should be attributed as viewpoints.

That said, and a fundamental issue at play, is the language at YESPOV, the bullet that starts "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." That is, to this point, is at some point, we can agree that the statement "Jonestown was a cult." can be said in Wikivoice without attribution since by this point in this, that is an "uncontested and uncontroversal statement", but in counterpoint, we can't say "Qanon is a cult." in wikivoice w/o attribution due to the contested nature of that claim. And that's why its important to understand that contested claims can come from sources that are beyond our RSes, and not just limited to what RSes we have picked, as well as common sense of what are contested claims. That's also why RECENTISM is important, as to wait for current controversial aspects to die down and wait for retrospectives that can look back at that point in time in a uncontested manner. The problem at this point is that NPOV does not speak at all to how to make this call, and that's what is absolutely needed , because far too often we have editors rushing to make claims that there's no uncontested claims in short-term coverage of controverial topics, as well as editors that are trying to challenge long-term topics that are no longer considered controversial. --Masem (t) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, by now we have topics from the first two decades of the 21st century in which there is no dispute among RS about the facts, including facts about such characteristics as "white nationalism". We have quality academic sources about many of these topics. Your contention that our articles should attribute such labels where they are not contested simply runs afoul of NPOV and specifically the requirement not to present facts as though they were opinions. Your apparent supposition that we should not do so on the grounds of RECENTISM - that facts on which all RS agree might change, so we should attribute them - is a misreading of both RECENTISM and consensus reality itself. We are, in fact, obliged to follow the reliable sources rather than our own private intuitions about what the verdict of history is most likely to be, per WP:CRYSTAL. Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But there's the other part of the equation about labels, and that's how frequently they are used as well. Again, if only a small proportion of sources (even if they are academic) use a label or subscribe to a viewpoint, that should not be presented as a widely-held view.

And you are completely misreading my point on RECENTISM; it is not that opinions may change, but in the long-term, we can rely on sources that are far more dispassionate and impartial about events to be able to identify what were majority viewpoints (or a singular majority viewpoint) that we would rely on. The sourcing in the short-term, including some academic sources from social sciences, cannot be immediately taken as being dispassionate or impartial, and thus we should be in any rush to take those sources as fact in the short-term. Or in the case where there is no further cover years out but well after any controversy over a topic has died down, then its going to be less of a POV for WPians to do impartial, dispassionate summaries of the majority viewpoints from the material presented at the time of the controvery, and if that includes identifying that there was only one major take ("X was a label") to use without attribution, that should be fine. But all this should be spelled in detail in NPOV before touching LABEL to prevent both POV pushers as well as POV whitewashers. --Masem (t) 02:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an overly simplistic question. If wiki policy trumps wiki guidelines, and the wiki policy is as you're implying incorrect, what is to stop the POV pushers from already ignoring the guidelines because policy already says otherwise? Conversely, if guidelines are explanatory for how to interpret policy, then why is fixing a guidelines from being out of step with the policy it is citing so much of an issue to fix? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing LABEL to "comply" with NPOV doesn't fix the underlying problem that we do not give any kind advice of when we can take a majority viewpoint as fact in wikivoice at NPOV or INTEXT, meaning that both POV pushers and whitewashers will still argue over the issues. In other words, this is bailing water out of a sinking boat rather than trying to plug the hole to stop it from sinking in the first place. --Masem (t) 02:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding it is not that opinions may change, but in the long-term, we can rely on sources that are far more dispassionate and impartial about events to be able to identify what were majority viewpoints (or a singular majority viewpoint) that we would rely on — maybe? But it's certainly not guaranteed. One could just as well say that history will remember a majority viewpoint as the only viewpoint. (Only specialists in the history of astronomy recall the Tychonic universe...) Impartiality may or may not grow with time, and passions may or may not fade. Guessing either way goes against WP:CRYSTAL. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly some controversies that have gone on for decades or longer, such as the Israeli Palestini issue. In such cases we should still recognize that issues are contested and thus make sure to write majority viewpoints with necessary attribution. This should b our default approach to any topic of contro easy, with RECENTISM saying that we should that caution to not rush to judge who is right or wrong in short term , but there are some topics that will outlive their controversial nature beyond the extent of RECENTISM that we should handle in the same manner. The CRYSTAL problem would be jumping to conclude that we should speak a majority viewpoint in wikivoice without attribution before the period suggested by RECENTISM is over. --Masem (t) 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are equating apples to cucumbers here, Masem. In the case of Israel-Palestine we have - and have always had - reliable sources documenting that there are multiple (and somewhat irreconcilable) perspectives on the dispute. You are saying that - based on a "reading" of RECENTISM where both the language and the intent of that guideline disappear behind your own interpolations - we should treat topics that are undisputed in the reliable sources as though they were disputed until you are convinced that the RS have achieved a long-run, IMPARTIAL perspective. If you can't see the CRYSTAL in that, you should stay out of drug dens, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are still missing the point, in that we should be far more careful of how we incorporate viewpoints, even if there is seemingly only a majority view as reported by RSes, in the short term near the event of a topic, and once we pass that short term (something like 5 to 10 years depending) when there are no heated passions about the controversy, we can start looking to see if it makes sense to express that majority viewpoint in unattributed wikivoice. Whether that's due to. More recent sources that give us that support, or the need for us to review the older sources, it doesn't matter, just as long as it is not done in the short term. --Masem (t) 18:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Ableist" language being "corrected" on dozens of articles (WP:EUPH?)

I've noticed that Smasongarrison is currently going through a plethora of articles and changing the word "suffered" to "had", strangely while citing WP:EUPH, which states

If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that.

Are they interpreting this correctly? Do we have to write "she had a nervous breakdown" instead of "she suffered a nervous breakdown"? ili (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Have to" is a strong term here. "Am allowed to" and "it is a good idea to, if you can be so bothered" are better. After all, if you don't want to improve the articles as Smasongarrison is doing, you don't have to. They seem to be doing a fine job without you. --Jayron32 16:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, these changes seem to be in line with a clear WP style to avoid certain passive phrases. --Masem (t) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to change the tag to tone rather than euph if that would make ILIL feel better about it. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I do think it's typically more in keeping with an encyclopedic tone to say someone "had a nervous breakdown" than "suffered" it, though I don't understand how "suffered" is a euphemism. Even so, there are still probably contexts where "suffered" would be more explanatory and fitting than "had", for example: despite suffering from an injury to her knee, she was still able to push through and win the race would probably be better than despite having injured her knee three weeks prior, ... as it implies she was still suffering from the knee injury during the race. Endwise (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that there may be times when "suffered" is appropriate, but many if not most of the times when it is being used is to grant emotional weight to a situation where we probably shouldn't be doing so. This is especially true because suffering is about a person's internal mental state, which in nearly all cases, we cannot assess. To say, for example, that someone "suffers from diabetes" means you're reading their mind on what diabetes makes them feel. If you just say someone "has diabetes" there are no such assumptions made. That's a clear improvement. It isn't that "suffers" should never be used, but it should be used much less than it is, and these changes noted above are all spot on. --Jayron32 14:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I fully agree that "had" is almost always better than "suffered", and even in the case above Masem was correct to say that you could still probably work around it instead. Endwise (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

There's still a better tone with that example, being something like "she won the race despite having a knee injury". --Masem (t) 17:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Largely said by others now, but ... Smasongarrison's edits seem largely constructive to my eye, based on a spot check. It's worth differentiating between conditions/disorders like cerebral palsy and e.g. a snowboarding accident in which someone broke their ankle. Most of the arguments I've seen about avoiding ableist language are more about the former than the latter. Still, whether we cite this guideline or something like WP:TONE, "X broke her ankle in a snowboarding accident" sounds more encyclopedic to me than "X suffered a broken ankle in a snowboarding accident". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the instinct to move toward more plain language is a good one, but we need to be careful to avoid introducing ambiguities. e.g. here "He suffered a spinal injury while climbing in 1985." was changed to "While climbing in 1985, he had a spinal injury." The first formulation makes it clear that the injury occurred while he was climbing. But the latter could be read as him climbing in 1985 despite having a (pre-existing) spinal injury. Something like "he incurred a spinal injury" would probably be clearer in a case like this. Colin M (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Or, even better, "he injured his spine". --Jayron32 16:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestions/points! Smasongarrison (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Yet"

Is this a weasel word when used at Persecution of Hindus? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Some were a bit weasely, some was just not well written. I removed most of the yets. The two remaining seem correct. David Lorenzen asserts that during the Islamic rule period there was state-sponsored persecution against Hindus, yet it was sporadic and directed mostly at Hindu religious monuments. I would have used though there, but it seems fine. The raids caused suffering, yet also rallied the Islamic faithfuls and weakened the infidel prince by weakening his standing among his Hindu subjects. Yet seems correct there, although infidel prince seems not great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the two, I was thinking "while also". I think I'll change the infidel prince. Should we include "yet" the MOS? Doug Weller talk 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As a word to watch? I don't think it's any worse than "though" or "while also" or any other qualifier. I'm not familiar with the topic area, is "infidel prince" an NPOV way to refer to someone in context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the context. But in fact the source says "an infidel prince" so I changed it to that. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would need more details about context and what the sources say to be sure, but what I would be worried about is WP:SYNTH / WP:OR implications - often when editors combine two clauses with something like "yet" or "despite that" or the like, what they're doing is taking one source that says X happened, another source about unrelated point Y that is not directly connected to X by the second source, and using them to make the argument that the first point is negated / answered / rebutted somehow. That's SYNTH, though the severity depends on context. Usually unless two points are directly presented as point-counterpoint in a source I would avoid presenting them that way in the text, not just by avoiding "yet" or "despite that" or the like but by deliberately restructuring the article to place the two sources at different places so the reader isn't led towards an unsourced conclusion. If they have to be placed near each other (because they eg. represent two conflicting views) I would be very careful to avoid wording them in a way that implies that one answers the other or the like unless there's clear sourcing supporting that. Another problem is that the order can be used to create implications - when we have two sources that contradict, framing it as "Y, but actually X" can come across as the second point being the "real" truth even though the sources don't reflect that. I'd also generally avoid allowing WP:RSOPINION to directly rebut or respond to facts - opinions should be separated out and covered elsewhere. "[Factual source says X] but [talking head in an opinion piece says Y] is IMHO usually giving too much weight to the opinion piece, at least if it's only cited to the opinion-piece, unless they are a really well-established expert. --Aquillion (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well said, Aquillion. I see this sort of thing too often. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request

Editors are invited to comment on the article "Sacred Cod"'s use of style at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1. ɱ (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing "gave his/her life" to "gave their life"

I believe that in the Euphemisms section, "gave his/her life' should be changed to "gave their life". I tried to edit the page to change this, but my edit was reverted. However, I do not believe it should have been reverted, as the revert reason doesn't make sense to me; transgender and pronoun non-conforming people can die, just as cisgender and pronoun-conforming people can. The point of using "their" isn't to say that everyone is transgender, the point is gender neutrality and inclusivity; changing it to "gave their life" would not drastically alter the point that the section is trying to get across, but I believe it would better to be fully neutral and inclusive by using "their". Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -HaiFire3344 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to use a gender neutral term when someone clearly identifies as a gender. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though HaiFire3344 is asking this in relation to a specific article, but within the context of clarifying the MOS. How about "gave his/her/their life" instead? That way you keep the specificity in practice for when a subject's gender is known and is inclusive for when it is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that I have no objection to, although it's probably unnecessary clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"His/her/their" is fine. My point was that an article might contain "gave his life" and it might contain "gave her life". Only when the subject is transgender is the article going to say "gave their life", which is, yes, another possibility. But the point of even "gave his/her life" isn't to imply that an article will literally have "his/her", which, if it appeared in an article, I would also collapse to "their". I'm going to stop now because I feel like I need to clarify what I mean further but somehow I think I'll just muddle it more if it isn't already clear. Largoplazo (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I get the sentiment, but listing now three different pronouns is distracting from the actual point. In fact, I'd argue that listing the two was also distracting. Since these are just examples, and we don't actually list multiple pronouns in text, why not just replace it with, say, "her"? Nobody is going to think the point doesn't apply to another gender. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case, why not "their"? Certainly "gave their life" is more commonly used than either of the explicitly gendered terms, at least in the UK and Ireland. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In an article about a male soldier, Colonel Joe Peterson, I would not write that "Peterson gave their life". The number of people about whom I would write that is a small minority and, for that reason, in addition to the fact that "their" is ambiguous, is not the best example if we are to choose only one of them. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly "gave their life" is more commonly used than either of the explicitly gendered terms Ngrams disagree.

Anyways, I agree with Crossroads's point. I'm going to boldly change it to use a single pronoun. In the hopes of avoiding any appearance of bias, I'm going to look at the revision id of this edit, and will use "his" if it's odd, and "her" if it's even. Colin M (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?

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

---

This RfC concerns List of countries and dependencies by population.

This discussion asks 2 questions:

1. Given that an electronic encyclopedia or gazetteer is a permanent work in progress over longer periods of time, how appropriate is the relative time expression 'today' in the context of this list article.
2. Depending on the outcome of the opinions to Q1 , should 'today' be replaced by 'as of [date]', or another suitable explanation that the dates in the table might not be as up-to-date as inferred by the use of 'today'?

Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This RfC concerns a current case in one article, List of countries and dependencies by population. However, depending on the discussion the outcome may have implications for other articles, and/or the Manual of Style. It is also possible that such a guideline already exists but which may be hard to find, unclear or ambiguous, or simply not known to or not recognised by some edititors.

(Previous and/or major contributors to the article and its talk page and parent projects have been notified of this discussion in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS)

Guidelines

• Relative time references
• Outdated statements
• As of...

Other (for this RFC):

• Gazetteer
• WP:BRD (now 'discuss' stage)

Issue

List of countries and dependencies by population is a fairly high traffic article with 960 page watchers and 529,816 page views in the last 60 days (as of 6 June 2022). This does not mean however that the article is regularly updated. The page has been edited by 12 users since since the beginning of 2019. The lead paragraph closes with:

Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion today. –(The bolding is mine)

One editor added a {{when?}} tag to the sentence. This was followed by another editor replacing 'today' with: as of 2019.. This was then reverted back to 'today' by another editor with the edit summary: Nope, this is a population clock, so the number is as per today. Every day.

The main section of this list article is its table. Whether or not the populations are automatically updated by the 'population clock' sources such as for example in the template {{data Brazil|poptoday 1}}, the table column 'Date' shows many different years for the 243 sets of data in the table, going back to the oldest of 2015. According to their dates of retrieval, many of the referenced sources in the table do not appear to be from 'today' , or even from 2022.

This discussion asks 2 questions

1. Given that an electronic encyclopedia or gazetteer is a permanent work in progress over longer periods of time, how appropriate is the relative time expression 'today' in the context of this list article.

2. Depending on the outcome of the opinions to Q1 , should 'today' be replaced by 'as of [date]', or another suitable explanation that the dates in the table might not be as up-to-date as inferred by the use of 'today'?

Please answer in the Discussion sub-section below. Begin your comment with an asterisk: *

Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

(Please note that this is a discussion and not a straw poll with 'support' and 'oppose' !votes. The closer will assess the consensus.)

• Hi, as you invited me to this discussion, I am here. I would suggest to change the sentence from Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion today to Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion as of (today's date). RayAdvait (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Two comments: 1) The reflections above about the main section of the article, especially that many of the referenced sources in the table do not appear to be from 'today' is irrelevant, since the use of 'today' in the context discussed explicitly is limited to the estimate of the world population. 2) Having said this, I support changing the formula from 'estimates at X billion today' to either 'estimates at X billion as of [date]' or possibly better 'estimates at X billion as of today'. Just 'today' could be interpreted as imprecise and vague, while 'as of today' clearly indicates that the current date is meant. --T*U (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps for clarity we need wording on the lines of "Also given in percent is each country's most recently available population compared with the current world population, as estimated daily by the United Nations". And possibly re-word the column header from "Percentage of the world" to "Percentage of current world pop." And perhaps re-order the columns, to put the date adjacent to the population figure it describes. PamD 08:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I like the suggestions, PamD, but the linked United Nations source is a 2019 document and I cannot see where it is updated 'daily'. (I did download and view the 2.5Mb xlsx file WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES from that site). Maybe I have missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I had naively (AGF) assumed that the template was working as described and that the UN were indeed publishing a daily estimate. It seems not - the formula in the template uses a base figure for 2019 pop and an estimated daily increase rate and does the sums, not allowing for any variation (climate change? Covid?). Perhaps in this article we would be better to use one fixed figure, perhaps the estimated population on 1 Jan 20nn, and update it each year. But which figure? As I type, I've found 3 constantly-updated figures: US census offers 7,900m, the "World Population Review" says 7,948m, and "Worldometer" has 7,952m. The UN population division say 7,954m for 2022, higher than any of the three rolling figures. Asking Wikipedia: Demographics of the world says 7.9billion, and World population says "estimated to have exceeded 7.9 billion as of November 2021". Take your pick. Perhaps we should just use the 7.9bn figure and say so, until there is general agreement that we have hit 8bn. In this article it is, after all, only the divider for a percentage. Or use the figure which is the total of the stated populations, if the table can be made to add itself up. PamD 13:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC) updated 13:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that readers may download/print off documents and thus the automatic population number will not update with those versions, while "today" will remain in place. It should be replaced with a automatic "as of" (at least to month and year) so that fixed versions will have a clear date when the population estimate should be used. --Masem (t) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• (as proposer) I think that whether downloaded or viewed online, the sources themselves that are not today's data render the claim of 'today' a misnomer. Not everyone clicks on sources to check them out - generally readers would probably take the info in the table in an uncontroversial article like this as being accurate, although effectively they are being unintentionally lied to. The problem is that readers trust our content and use it for their dissertations and research papers and possibly even in class. Hence in the scope of the MoS, to use 'today' as a relative time reference in this context would be, IMO, inaccurate/misleading. We do see the {{when?}} tag being used quite often in articles, and not without reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• As a wider MOS discussion, if there is a rare case where a figure does indeed link to a regularly-updated live statistic, then this must be clarified in the text of the article ("a current figure of xxxx (data provided by the Aaa Bbb Ccc and updated daily [/weekly, monthly, annually].)", to reassure the reader that in this rare case the "current" or "today's" is actually correct. Including today's date (or the month or year for monthly or yearly updates), for the sake of offline or print-out readers, might also be useful. PamD 13:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Saw this in CENT. I don't think it's at all appropriate, except if the person who writes today sets a timer and makes a commitment, either individually or as part of a group, to either update the referent or remove "today" every single day, without exception (breaks on weekends are negotiable). The rest of the community certainly isn't going to search through every single instance of today today (or tomorrow), even if we might be able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a very valid comment Alpha3031. A moderate to high traffic article with frequently changing content does indeed need to be regularly updated. That's why statements in the lede or the body text need to reflect the actual state of the claims made by the authors. I have written several Wikipedia articles, and I am fully aware of WP:OWN, but rightly or wrongly, I've always taken care to update them when necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but some of the arguments used here seem to indicate that not everybody is aware that the number showing up as the world population is recalculated every time the article is presented. Template:worldpop contains a formula that is based on the methodology used in the UN source, calculating the population on the current date. --T*U (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of this RfC is exactly that not all the data is automatically updated every time the article is loaded. The UN source is only one of the many sources used. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Won't update automatically for any offline copies. Hence why its a problem. Masem (t) 15:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is an RFC. It is a simple matter of changing "today" to "as of [automatically calculated full date]". Just be bold and do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an RfC Jonesey95, because if you read the preamble,, you'll see that of WP:BRD B and R have already been done - the change was disputed. This is the 'discussion' phase. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bold edit that was Reverted (by me, by the way) was the insertion of the phrase as of 2019, simply because it was erronous. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I read it a couple of times, and it looks like "today" was replaced with "as of 2019", which is inaccurate. It should have been replaced by {{date}}, I'm pretty sure. Automatic date calculation is used at the top of the big table, so there should be no problem using similar code in the lead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question: Is anyone actually opposed to changing the text from estimates at X billion today to estimates at X billion as of {{date}}? If not, this discussion could be snow closed. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It does say in the preamble that this is not a straw poll and that discussion should take precedence over 'support' and 'oppose' !votes , even if some users have been lulled in to believing that RfC are based on numerical results. Hence, as it has only been open for barely 48 hours, and as there are two questions to be discussed, it would probably be fair to allow the discussion to run until more of the notified users and those seeing the the notifications have had an opportunity to chime in and it becomes clear that no further comments will be forthcoming. Not all Wikipedia contributors remain glued to their computers 24/7 as is evidenced by the very participation of the 'regular' authors/maintainers of the article in question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just throwing a thought in, in case it adds anything to the discussion. I've seen this RfC as advertised in Template:Cent, as "Use of 'today' as a relative time reference", and my instinctive response to that heading was "Don't". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Any use of "today" in an article becomes inaccurate tomorrow. It should not be used (nor should we count on future updates, given things like permalinks and offline copies, even if there is some setup where the text is automatically updated from some external source). Rather, "As of (appropriate time frame)" should be used, and that would be accurate even if someone read that version of the article a thousand years from now. In the event of automated updates, the "as of" date should just be auto-updated as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• "As of [date]" has no downsides to "today" and definite upside. Added clarity is a good thing, even when "today" might still be accurate. Retswerb (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• As of [date]. All instances like this where the ambiguous 'today' is used should be replaced with [date]. Any additional information that might be useful can be supplied in a note. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely seems like we should nix "today", even when it's technically correct for the most recently updated revision. Old revisions (i.e. articles in print, or reused elsewhere online) should not become wrong if we can help it. If a statistic is being updated daily (either via a template or by a diligent editor) then the date should be as well, i.e. using {{date}}. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• An interesting question. It's a fairly common phrasing in the press, but WP is not press, it's an encyclopedia. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of a blanket rule, but I think in this case, and generally throughout the encyclopedia, it should probably be avoided (although I think I may have been guilty of using it a few times myself). While I think it is generally understood that it does not mean "as of right now" it is still imprecise, implies that the article is up to date when it easily may not be, and can be easily replaced with phrasing without these issues, i.e "as of <date>", "in modern times" etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

'as of today' was first introduced to the article on 22 August 2018, and by 27 April 1921 had become simply 'today' at 7.96 billion and is still 7.96 billion today 11 June 2022. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the figure attributed to the UN in this list is not their daily estimate but a number calculated by a Wikipedia template from their 2019 estimates of World population and daily increase. We would do better to use a figure such as the 7.9bn given in Demographics of the world or the UN figure ("as of 2022") of 7,954m. PamD 05:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

We should not say "as of today". It is occasionally appropriate to say "as of [current date]", using a template that automatically substitutes the current day, month and year, when the statement and reference are both also using templates that update daily. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Stick to the sources: Setting aside the more general discussion, in the article List of countries and dependencies by population I believe it is misleading when we say "which the United Nations estimates at 8.14 billion today" (Code: which the [[United Nations]] estimates at {{#expr: {{worldpop}}/1000000000 round 2}} billion today) because the UN does not publish any such estimate. The figure we are using is derived from a 2019 estimate of population and a 2019 estimate of daily growth. The UN itself quotes a figure of 7.954bn for 2022: I think we should use that figure, saying "which the United Nations estimates as 7.954 billion as of 2022", and update it when a 2023 estimate is available from the UN. And the spuriously-accurate-looking figure of (today) "7,956,887,000" at the top of the column should be replaced by the 7.954 bn estimate. PamD 14:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

PamD, I would think that is probably the most appropriate solution. The main thing is that readers are not lulled into assuming that all the population figures in the article are accurate and up-to-date. Without prejudice to the final consensus of this discussion and an official closure, I have been bold and edited this high traffic article to reflect this suggestion, and included the source. If anyone has a different opinion, it can naturally be modified or reverted, the original text is commented out with <!-- --> tags. However, I have not edited the first entry in the table as I am not sufficiently confident to do this without breaking anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The table in the article certainly seems very complicated. I think the result would be achieved if instead of {{worldpop}} we had a new template {{worldpop-UN}} which produced a figure, currently 7,954,000,000, for the current pop and was manually updated each time the UN dashboard produced a new figure (annually?). But I think discussion on that article's talkpage might be needed. The template {{worldpop}} seems to be used in seven articles including this one (but the use in OPEC is absurd as it is the "world" figure in a column headed "Population (2018 est)"!). PamD 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is this a specific article question (in which case it probably shouldn't be on CENT...) or a "policy everywhere" question? Assuming it's the latter, I don't have any objection to changing one specific table with numbers that go out of date quickly to not use "today". However, I'd be against taking this discussion as a general prohibition about ever using "today". Today is bad for things that are obviously dated, like "Today, France has a population of 65 million." But "today" can be fine for things that are exceedingly unlikely to change without some sort of massive event, or for epic time scale topics measured in centuries or more. "The 49th parallel border established between Canada and the United States at the Oregon Treaty remains in place today" is fine, as an example. SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your examples are fine SnowFire when used in the right context as you have explained very clearly, but perhaps the MoS needs to be updated to reflect and advise upon these differences. Hence the very reason this RfC was published on Cent rather than being solely a one-article issue discussed on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think "today" is obviously bad in this specific case for all the reasons given above, and also in most similar cases where "today" is paired with a specific number or factual claim that will necessarily become out of date very quickly. Beyond that, I think "today" and "currently" are words that should be avoided wherever possible, given that we are not here to write a real-time information source, and any given article or section may well -- currently -- end up sitting for >15 years without substantive attention. I think the existing language of the guideline expresses this reasonably well, although perhaps it needs to do so more strongly. -- Visviva (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• I don't wish to comment on the specific example, but I would oppose quickly making a general rule against "today". Many "today" type statements are likely going to stay true for hundreds or millions of years or even forever, depending on the article and field. "There was a savanna in Africa during the African humid period, today there is the Sahara desert" is unlikely to become wrong soon. "It was generally believed by 18th century geographers that seawater could not freeze; today we know they were wrong" also does not need any "as of" as it won't ever become wrong. —Kusma (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Data referenced to today is generaly bad. Kusma just above makes good point on cases when "toady" is acceptable. Note the difference in use: Kusma's examples are cases of "something was this way once but today it is some other way" when both the exact time of change is irrelevant (presumably explained later) and the something is not expected to change anytime soon, if ever; the case in discussion is about data that changes daily, has been changing daily, and is expected to keep on changing. In the case in point (ever changing data) "today" should never be used because: 1) on print "today" will be wrong tomorrow; 2) should we miss an update, or stop updating for whatever reason, the article will become wrong. 3) The formula with an automatic update should be removed because it is inaccurate, as explained by by PamD, I add that we can't expect a growth rate estimate for 2019 to stay valid indefinetelly, not even to 2022, better have the correct estimate from 2019, than original research for 2022. - Nabla (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, this is a very unusual case and I'm wary about modifying the MOS for such a case. That said, we're talking about a template which does change every day such that the figure you see is for "today". The main reason we don't want to use today in articles is because in every other case, we're not talking about a figure that automatically updates on-wiki every day. If there's consensus we shouldn't use this auto-updating template because it's not based on sound data, is too close to WP:OR or some other reason, then the discussion is moot, but if we are going to have it I would argue that "today" is preferable to a date, but that having a bot transclude/update it with a date every day is probably ideal. Above, Masem writes Keep in mind that readers may download/print off documents and thus the automatic population number will not update with those versions, while "today" will remain in place. - It's true that people print it out. The thing is, nobody expects "today" in print to actually reflect "today". When I read a book, a magazine, etc., I know it was printed and that the pages do not automatically update. On the other hand, something people do use on Wikipedia is the page history. People look through past versions and sometimes even do so in order to see changes over time. If you have "as of [date]", then someone looks at a past version, it will show the present population (as per the template) with an incorrect date. Perhaps the best solution (again, if we're going to keep the template), is to have a bot transclude it (or just update the numbers directly) every day and include a date. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  On the issue of an article using "today" that ends up printed out is that what if there's no datestamp on the printed document? I know we're now entering the exception of the exception here, but the other scenario (looking through page history with an "as of" template) is probably about as similar odds, so there's plusses and minuses both ways. Masem (t) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• The articles should be written IN THE PAST TENSE anyway, considering ALL them are written before the readers get around to reading them. Wouldn't that solve the problem, or am I missing something? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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

MOS:ALLEGED issues

I think there are some issues with the MOS:ALLEGED guideline, most specifically that 'alleged' and 'accused' need discussing separately. These two words do not hold the same meaning. While the MOS:ALLEGED guideline holds water for the likes of "supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, so-called", this follow-up: "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." is too vague and blurs the distinction between 'alleged' and 'accused'. These two words have different nuances and relationships with proof. 'Accused' as a term notably casts no aspersions about the proof or the accuser. See the definition: "claim that (someone) has done something wrong.". 'Alleged', on the other hand, often implies that there is either no evidence, the evidence is false or the accuser is only making an accusation to cast aspersions of something negative over the accused. 'Alleged' is what a lawyer rebutting an accusation might jump up and shout in court. See that definition: "said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality." - note the emphasis on "without proof" and its relationship in meaning to "undesirable qualities". 'Alleged' is all about aspersion. It is my feeling that MOS:ACCUSED should have its own section separate to MOS:ALLEGED where the difference between 'accused' and the 'alleged'-type weasel words are clearly laid out. (All definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary.) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Alleged simply means that the the claim has been legally stated, but has not been proved one way or the other. Technically it is more neutral than accused, which implies that blame or guilt is assumed by the accuser. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wheelchair bound

I'd really like an outsider opinion/reassurance that changing euphemisms to be less offensive towards disabled people is a worthwhile thing and is consistent with the MOS:EUPH guidelines. I've received heavy pushback from one editor @Mathsci who considers these changes silly. I think that the guidance is crystal clear on this. The current contention is about the phrases confined to a wheelchair or being wheelchair-bound. I've tried to raise a conversation about this issue on the talk pages but those conversations seem to just be [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laughing_Under_the_Clouds#Choice_of_language rehashes ] of this one , which was already discussed on this page.

Smasongarrison (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Smasongarrison is making indiscriminate edits about plots and fictional characters in films. Often these concern comedy cartoon films or horror films (Madagascar or Frankenstein vs. Dracula). They have developed a robotic automated script, which is gradually developing. In this fictional context, it is inappropriate that these fictional plots or character descriptions should be mangled in this way. No thought seems to been applied, no reflection; they haven't bothered checking proof-reading or reading through the articles.

In the case of Charles-Valentin Alkan, they have tried to process the same stable wp:featured article twice, despite being warned by user:Smerus and me. On previous occasions, they have taken no notice (there were previous complaints in 2018). Smasongarrison's edits appear periodically on my watchlist (sometimes with articles subject to WP:DS). For example, in May 2022 they made edits to Ted Kaczynski, which were reverted. On Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan, they brushed off problems they were doing, declaring "I don't have the bandwidth to itemize their responses". It has been pointed out to Smasongarrison – who has no formal medical training – that the use of British English terms "suffering a stroke" is standard and cam be found in stroke advice for emergency treatment in the National Health Service. That seems not to have not registered with Smasongarrison, who has made four edits about Charles Dickens recently. The same with Samuel Johnson, a featured article. It's easy to see that the script is crappy: sometimes the Smasongarrison bot-script find "disabled" and does nothing; sometimes there will be replaced by an anachronistic euphemism. Who knows what the Smasongarrison script will do with the wp:featured article A Christmas Carol and the word "crippled".

The automated edits to the article Željko Đurđić shocked me: Smasongarrison's script produced unintelligible content and, given that it was of stub length, no proof reading had occurred. I had to make several corrections myself, taking into account the subject's personal circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm following MOS:MED guidance and this discussion. The script is a human being who looks at the edits and tries to be careful. Please keep the issue focused on the style guide, not on your concerns about me as a human being. I really don't appreciate being called a bot. I try to be responsive and engaging when editors raise concerns and have tried my best.

I'm not perfect, but I think that mathsci is focused on me instead of the actual issue. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathsci#%22Suffering%22 ] Smasongarrison (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ping a few folks who were involved in the discussion @Liz @User:Johnbod. But honestly, I'm just going to take a break because I had forgotten how distressing I find dealing with Mathsci. Smasongarrison (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody would start doing this on Dracula vs. Frankenstein. This is a horror film, so clearly fictional. Being able to distinguish between fact and fiction is important. Please note WP:CANVASS (which is usually frowned on). Note also that the misguided edits to articles on fictional plots show a deliberate choice on the part of Smasongarrison; instead of following wp:consensus, Smasongarrison harms wp:featured articles. In the context of horror films or animated movies, these are not real medical conditions but just poorly devised scripts concocted by Smasongarrison's themselves. As far as I am aware, Smasongarrison has never created substaintial content on wikipedia. They have made offensive edits concerning editors who, like me, have suffered from stroke. Mathsci (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What would happen with the plot summary of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It is fictional. Mathsci (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry that I offended you by editing the term suffer within the context of a stroke. My intent was never to offend. I was genuine in my offer to avoid editing the term. However, I don't think that there's anything I can say to convince you that I am a good faith editor who has made substantial contributions both here on wikipedia AND as part of the 'poorly devised bot' team. I make mistakes and try to be responsive, and I agree that I've made mistakes (I do my best to correct them). But, I really need you to try to assume that I am a good faith editor. And I would like to convey that the last time we interacted, I was trying to navigate my own grandmother having a stroke. I was trying to distract myself by doing non-controversial edits, and I did my best to avoid conflict by shifting away from the term, because that seemed easier than explaining the nuances of ableist language. Smasongarrison (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it's really clear that this conversation has derailed. And, that there's nothing I can say to convince you that I'm a netgood to wikipedia. And that the reason the "script is crappy" is because I am being very intentional with my edits. That indeed 'sometimes the Smasongarrison bot-script find "disabled" and does nothing' because I'm using discretion and am I person. But obviously this isn't a productive conversation. Smasongarrison (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Probably off-topic, but I have been a wheel chair and walking frame user these past 6 months (prognosis is good that it might not be permanent). I tend to regard these devices as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement. However, using 'wheelchair bound' in my case is perfectly forgivable and I don't mind it. It is a common expression even if it is not apt for Wikipedia, which I accept. I do appreciate however, that the use of euphemisms is particular to US culture whereas we Brits tend to be more plain speaking (e.g. bathroom, rest room = toilet). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous script use aside, @Mathsci: characters and plots being fictional is not on its own a sufficient justification to relax editorial standards wrt. how we describe them. Fictional characters with disabilities are, of course, not harmed by the use of ableist language, but the living humans who read those descriptions can be. This is why, for example, we don't use racial slurs to describe characters in Huck Finn, in spite of the author himself doing so. Avoiding potentially stigmatizing/biased language does not inhibit Wikipedia in providing an accurate and useful synopsis.

I don't consider myself qualified to judge the acceptability of terms like wheelchair-bound, although "suffering from [stroke/heart attack]" (i.e. an immediate painful symptom, not a chronic disease or disability) doesn't seem especially objectionable. Kudpung's input is appreciated. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

These are ableist terms. Wheelchair-bound is negative as it emphasises that some is bound i.e. tied to and therefore limited to their wheelchair which is stigmatizing and overly negative. Outside of wikipedia, I have some experience with Diversity and Inclusion. More inclusive language is wheelchair user, who uses a wheelchair etc. There's an article from the BBC, UK government guidance and Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is no justification in MEDMOS for changes to non-medical content, and this discussion in Archive 13 linked as justification seems more focused on text about non-fiction topics and still notes several cautions. In any case, that is not an RfC and does not carry the weight of policy or guideline. Comparing "wheelchair-bound" to the N-word in Huckleberry Finn seems rather extreme, and without community consensus, no one should be mass rewriting articles to match any idea about what style is proper unless that is to align with community consensus, such as in the MOS. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  This we should be careful about comparisons between different lived experiences (or protected characteristics as they're know in the UK Legislation). To someone who is disabled such language does have the same connotations as the N-word does to someone who is Black. That said Crossroads is right in the sense that a wholesale change would need the MOS to be updated and discussed thoroughly (perhaps via RfC) to ensure it is correct to change things that were written in language that was historically considered acceptable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Crossroads I didn't mean for this conversation to get derailed into the one about the use of phrases like suffering. Because i do agree that it's a stretch at best to use mosmod.

  I agree with a lot of what @Crossroads @Lil-unique1@RoxySaunders have said. Fundamentally, I think that we do need more explicit guidance about disability, ideally in one place, because right now it is spread all over the place.

  That's actually why I shifted into something that I *thought* was much less controversial about disability euphemisms, like wheelchair-bound, which had what I thought was clear guidance that we should avoid biased language, when an alternative exists that is less offense.

  >Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled people. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. Smasongarrison (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless, my plan is to shift away from edits in the disability arena that others consider bold. There are less bold euphemisms I can fix as I tinker with WP:AutoWikiBrowser. Smasongarrison (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is less an issue of writing style and more an issue of empathy. We are not here to win wars with one another, we are here to serve the reader. Empathy is required to accomplish this successfully. It's not a matter of whether the article in question is about fact or fiction, it's matter of doing the least harm possible, especially when that is something we can easily do simply by changing a few words. While we certainly should not and could not sanitize Wikipedia to the point where none of it could possibly offend anyone, this is an area where we can show some empathy at no cost to quality. If someone does not liek the way a particular user is going about it, that is a separate issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• It's acceptable but probably not the best. Wikipedia shouldn't change terms/expressions until it is clear their time has passed in common use. Not just that the latest style guides say this term is out of date but to the point that we are some of the last to make the change. Wikipedia shouldn't be leading any changes in language, we should be late to the party. That said, this isn't a very encyclopedic phrase regardless of time period. I don't see an issue with replacing it with something like "in a wheelchair" (another old expression) but treating it as some sort of objectionable expression seems to be a recent thing. Springee (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As a friendly note to all involved, a Request for Comment closed in December 2021 found no rough conesnsus to change the manual of style to deprecate those two phrases nor to issue any guidance in the Manual of Style against their use. For reasons of WP:CONLEVEL, this sort of thing should probably go through an RfC if there is desired change. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's super helpful! I hadn't seen that. (I'll make sure to use look through that in the future when I'm looking at AWB edits.) Smasongarrison (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Since "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are most commonly either wrong or not provably true, they can be changed on a case-by-case basis even though there is no consensus to deprecate them in MOS. The terms are only accurate if a person cannot move or stand without a wheelchair for any length of time; even then, they have offensive connotations. However, this particular dispute seems to be about something other than contesting the manual and careful change of this inappropriate language. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I had hoped that it was just a misunderstanding... and that could be cleared up without conflict (like last month). Unfortunately, he's decided that personal attacks are acceptable, as is following my edits. I've asked him to stop repeatedly, unfortunately, he seems to have done this kind of thing before and blocking doesn't seem to stop him from doing this kind of thing. Smasongarrison (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first time editors have pointed out problems with these bot-like edits: articles pop up periodically on users' watchlists (often the great & the good, but very long dead – like Dracula – or is he part of the undead ...). The circumstances when I suffered stroke have been mentioned before (while editing WP). In NHS documentation, the term "suffer a stroke" is used. The edit above does not seem related to MOS issues. But returning to animated movies, is Tom and Jerry politically correct? See Tom and Jerry#Controversies. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci this conversation is about wheelchair users and the use of wheelchair terminology. I know that you disagree with MOS:MEDLANG about the use of the word suffer. You've already expressed your opinion. You have been asked by admin to leave me alone. I now understand why you have strong feelings about strokes. I have tried to be responsive by leaving the word stroke alone. I literally removed it from my source code and added practically every page you edit to my list of pages to avoid.

I have really tried. I am not perfect. I am truly sorry that I re-editing the pages that upset you. I was trying to check over my previous edits.

But you need to stop reverting my edits. There is a policy about this WP:SUFFER and a very recent conversation about this terminology on this very page. I have tried my best to be receptive to your concerns and have disengaged when I did not have the emotional energy to argue with you at the time.

Regardless, it seems to me that you have a history of doing this to editors who disagree with you. That makes me uncomfortable. Frankly, the fact that you hold this much anger toward me really concerns me. Please leave me alone. I really don't want to fight with you over this. If you want to change the policy over on MOS:MEDLANG feel free to try. Please stop hounding *me* over it. It is not my policy.

You've been warned by a lot of admin over this kind of behavior over the years, including very recent requests by @Liz and Hammersoft: for [2] I don't want this to escalate. I genuinely want you to leave me alone because your have a long history of following users who upset you. Please spend your energy elsewhere. I have apologized for offending you and I'm trying my best to avoid you. Ask yourself if you really want to be spending your time hounding a disabled woman for making edits that are less offensive in describing disabled people. You don't have to like me, but please, leave me be. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: That seems like an overreach for that RfC closure. That there was no consensus to deprecate means there was no consensus to codify exclusion. That's all. It doesn't even mean there isn't consensus to prefer one set of terms to another. There's a huge range of words/terms that wouldn't get consensus to deprecate, even when existing guidelines make clear Wikipedia should generally avoid them. As long as something should only be avoided most of the time, it's unlikely to find consensus to deprecate. In other words, that there was no consensus to deprecate only means that -- it has no bearing on how existing guidelines are applied to articles. If Smasongarrison wanted to formally deprecate the terms then, yes, we'd need an RfC, but I'm not seeing that -- I'm seeing them replace the terms where it's appropriate to do so. This looks related. You're reading [the indeed awkwardly phrased] "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia" at WP:MEDMOS and reverting based on that, when the entire rest of that bulletpoint provides reasons not to use that phrase. That something isn't banned doesn't mean it's preferred -- so much preferred that it's worth reinstating when someone changes it to one of the "other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide" that aren't "stigmatising and offensive to some people". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, my qualifier of if there is desired change was meant to refer to changes to the MoS itself, rather than changes to a particular article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• This wall of text without diffs, possibly copy-pasted, is impossible to follow. My disabilities (stroke and syncope) are registered with the county council. I write articles in name space. For example I added content to Napoleon recently; and today checked an OCR bio to verify content that has been disputed. IRL I have helped organising, and lecturing in, conferences at Vanderbilt University; independently I have helped Vanderbilt French exchange students with internet problems in Aix-en-Provence when I was living in the Quartier Mazarin. Mathsci (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can clearly read enough of this request to know that your actions concern me and I want you to leave me alone. Your mentioning of my alma mater is unnecessary and serves to demonstrate that you have spent a lot of energy learning about me. Smasongarrison (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said last time this came up:
Smasongarrison's edits seem largely constructive to my eye, based on a spot check. It's worth differentiating between conditions/disorders like cerebral palsy and e.g. a snowboarding accident in which someone broke their ankle. Most of the arguments I've seen about avoiding ableist language are more about the former than the latter. Still, whether we cite this guideline or something like WP:TONE, "X broke her ankle in a snowboarding accident" sounds more encyclopedic to me than "X suffered a broken ankle in a snowboarding accident".
Coming back to the present, I'm most interested in why Mathsci thinks this sort of edit is an improvement such that it's worth making multiple times. Smasongarrison and others have articulated reasons why it's preferable to say "had Asperger syndrome" rather than "suffered from Asperger syndrome", but I'm not seeing good arguments to the contrary apart from some of the changes being fiction and the phrases not being explicit deprecated, which aren't very convincing IMO. The stroke example is one which I think is a somewhat grayer area, but many of these edits are pretty clearly improvements. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit about Alkan was not made by me, but by User:Smerus. I know about Alkan and Schumann because they both used the pedal piano for Bach's chorale preludes (e.g. for BWV 622); Smerus knows far more about Alkan than me and has photographed one of his instruments in Paris. He was the main creator of the featured article; it's written in British English and the use of the word "suffered" is normal. Given the timing, it's hard to see whether Smasongarrison read or digested the articles on either composers: they do not seem to have been selected with any particular rationale, just some kind of alphabetical order. The mental problems of Alkan and Schumann are well known to musicians (I've attended lecture-recitals about the Schumanns and Brahms in that context).

Rhodedentrites can check the 40,000 edits of Smasongarrison to see whether there are any edits that contain substantial contributions to namespace. I checked a while back, and could see none. Today I randomly chose this diff and noted that Smasongarrison "allowed" the word "suffered", so that the bot-like automated script is unreliable: During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic attacks was changed to During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic seizures.

At no stage has Smasongarrison explained why they are "disabled". Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The 1884 Yale obituary is a copy-paste for the article:

NOBLE BENNET PICKETT, the eldest son of Bennet and Sarah (Giddings) Pickett, was born, January 19, 1801, in Sherman, then the North Society in New Fairfield, Conn. In his early manhood he spent ten years in teaching, while at the same time pursuing his own studies, in medicine and other subjects. In the September after his graduation he was married to Laura Giddings, of Sherman. He then settled in professional practice in North East, Duchess County, N. Y., but a year later at the urgent request of friends removed to Great Barrington, Mass., where the rest of his life was spent. His medical skill and his earnest religious character made him much beloved. He was also specially interested m the educational work of the town. He served as a member of the State Legislature during two sessions, in 1851 and 1852. His public services were cut short by blindness, which overtook him about 1870. During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic attacks. He died suddenly at the house of his only child, a daughter, in Great Barrington, February 5, 1884, in his 84th year.

Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit about Alkan was not made by me - ??? You made the edit immediately following the one I linked and then restored the text again shortly thereafter (though Smerus did make one such edit, too). I would concede that, even though the reasons provided by you and Smerus weren't IMO very good, Smasongarrison shouldn't have made the same edit three times. They should've sought help elsewhere.

it's hard to see whether Smasongarrison read or digested the articles on either composers ... Rhodedentrites can check the 40,000 edits of Smasongarrison to see whether there are any edits that contain substantial contributions to namespace - I suspect when it comes to knowledge of this subject, nobody would challenge you and Smerus. Truly, I find the expertise of some of the editors who work on classical/opera articles impressive. Where I'd disagree is that knowing about the subject is necessary to change "suffered from Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder" to "had Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder". Some people spend their time reverting vandalism, some people adopt a typo to change across articles, some people fix dashes/hyphens, some people format references, some people remove promotional language, etc. Smasongarrison changes phrases like "suffered from Asperger syndrome" to "had Asperger syndrome", and given both this guideline and WP:TONE, that seems like a net positive that isn't going to vary all that much based on subject (i.e. an athlete, composer, and politician can all "have" Asperger syndrome without the need to say they "suffer from" it).

noted that Smasongarrison "allowed" the word "suffered", so that the bot-like automated script is unreliable - I do believe you've just provided evidence against the repeated assertion that they're making automated edits. BTW use of WP:AWB is allowed to find instances of specific phrasing. Users are responsible for each edit they make, and if they're making too many mistakes, they may lose access to AWB, but mere use of it to find those phrases is not a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI I left a pointer to this discussion at WikiProject Disability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Without looking at specific edits that may be problematic, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with changing "suffered from" or "suffered" to "had". On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone considers a stroke anything other than a negative experience. This makes me wonder whether we would say "enjoyed great success" or would "achieved great success" be better or is that still a judgement? How often do we imply failure is bad and success good? Is it too stigmatizing to say someone was "cured", that they were "healed", or that they "recovered"? Does that imply diseases and injuries are bad? Aren't diseases bad? Looking at the introduction to disease it says "A disease is a particular abnormal condition that negatively affects..." Is Smasongarrison going to be ok with that or will it eventually to need to be sanitized and neutered? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be mixing up the phrases "wheelchair bound" and "suffer". The former is usually simply factually incorrect, as, as has already been said above, few wheelchair users rely on them so much as to be bound to them. On the other hand one of my medical conditions is arthritis, and I, along with most other people with it, cerainly suffer when it gets bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: I typed out a response, but I'll just quote MOS:DISAB and WP:MEDMOS because they say it pretty concisely:

• The phrases confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair-bound should be avoided as they frame the disability and the assistive device in a negative light. They are also factually inaccurate in most cases: wheelchair users are neither physically bound to their chairs (except if falling out is a danger) nor need to remain in them, and many are in fact capable of walking, just not great distances or not consistently. Users tend to regard their wheelchairs as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement.
• Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom, which may imply helplessness: identifiers like survivor, affected person or individual with are alternate wordings. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do we really have to repeat this discussion every few months? Speaking as one of the founders and most active members of WikiProject Disability, if only a small fraction of the heat expended on these repetitious discussions were redirected to improving the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice page there might be some actual light cast on this benighted topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Its not compulsory, but it seems to remain inexplicably popular. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

People "afflicted" with disease

MOS:EUPH says "If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that." As well as conflicting with MOS:MED this just advocates crass writing; I cannot think of any example where following this advice would be good. I removed it but it was reinstated by Smasongarrison. Paging WT:MED for further input. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not in favor of "afflicted" terminology at all; stigmatizing, unnecessary, and going the opposite direction of the intent of MOS:MED. If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that. --> If a person has a medical condition, say just that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, it is not the nineteenth century.[3] Illness doesn't come from Satan. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would at least include the basic aspect from MOS:MED which is to avoid saying "suffered from" or that the person was a victim.--Masem (t) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with SandyGeorgia. If a person has a medical condition, say just that. – as neutral as we can get. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

My guess is Alex and Sandy see this as recommending using the word "afflicted" (or "affliction") while Smasongarrison sees this as meaning the same thing as "if someone has a condition, just say they have it". I don't think you're saying very different things; it's just a matter of how to clearly present it (and whether it needs to be presented as opposed to simply linking to MOS:MED and the disability style essay). I dare say since there are clearly multiple people reading this as prescriptive for "afflicted", it's probably better not to leave as-is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes; it's just confusing that we are using on a MOS page the very terminology we intend to avoid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I read "just say that" as referring to the wording used. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As in just say they have a condition, for example: they have a headache, they have a broken leg, they have cancer. It is clear, simple and steers clear of the ouskirts of verbosity. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm thrilled with changing "affliction" to "condition"! My concern was the complete removal of the advice of avoiding euphemisms related to medical conditions. (Like "wheelchair bound", "suffering from", "special needs" etc. )

Mason (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would say overall the practice in primary journal articles is to use phrases like "person afflicted with disease" because "afflicted" in this usage just means "affected by a disease". It's often a negative connotation, and some usages indicate mandatory "suffering" or "difficulty", but it traditionally just means "affected by". But the phrasing "person afflicted by" is person-first, it's not as derogatory as "suffering from" and it is disease-context-specific. I have yet to come across a better alternative and would be happy to see if anyone has one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

A person has a condition; an individual with a condition. It is as derogatory as "suffering from" to the extent it implies the historical usage of evil spirits. There is no need to use the word afflicted on this page.

Taking the Tourette syndrome example, the term afflicted is used in recent journal literature to describe those most severely afflicted (who are the extreme minority, sample), or to connect affliction to evil spirits (sample), or to describe dated/historical views on TS (sample, sample). Same can be said for dementia with Lewy bodies. The word is not used in any of the major secondary literature cited at the article. Scholars don't use the word; neither should we. We don't need it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Afflicted" in the bible (KJV) has a connotation of "burden" -

Leviticus 23:27 "Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord."

Exodus 1:11 "Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew."

Psalms 25:16 "Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted."

I'm not sure that "evil spirits" are any more connected to this word than "burden" itself or "affected by". I would love to see some sources on that. Sure it meant "burdened by" or "in distress from" in the middle ages [4] but it certainly does not mean "evil spirits" in its most historical middle english uses. Where are you getting that from? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion by SandyGeorgia as that phrasing is apparently uncontroversial (thus far, at least) and explicitly preferred to the original phrasing by several participants here. I would suggest that the most productive way to carry on this discussion might be to focus on whether to include examples of phrasings to avoid (such as "victim" and "suffer from" mentioned by Masem). TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the new language. I think it might be useful to add one of the examples that @Pbsouthwood posted in this conversation. After reading this discussion, I'm a little concerned that someone will interpret this advice as meaning you should write "He had a medical condition" instead of, e.g., "He had cancer".

Tangentially, in any given situation, there are people who suffer and people who don't; there are people who perceive themselves as being afflicted by outside forces (demonic or otherwise) and people who don't. Even if I have difficulty imagining anyone experiencing certain things without suffering, I think it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to treat these personal/emotional/cultural responses to a situation as being the same for everyone. I would sometimes accept "She suffered through ____" or (preferably) "She channeled her suffering from ____ into her <reason for notability>" when we have a strong source that uses that language and expands upon how the suffering affected the person, but not "Everyone suffers during _____". (By contrast, "lost his battle with _____" is always an unencyclopedic cliche.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, I would agree that "lost his battle with" is a bad idea, given that it paints weakness in the part of the loser. But I really fundamentally do not understand the issue with saying that illnesses are inherently negative in how they affect the ill. Sure, for some circumstances, there are conditions which some may consider a disease that others will consider a divergent state of natural variation (eg Autism) and we need to respect that, and specifically not label everyone in such a situation as "afflicted" but, why group all conditions in one boat? Is anyone really saying that cancer and Autism are the same category?

If it isn't a negative condition, it probably isn't "afflicting." But to suggest that a condition like cancer is doing anything other than "afflicting" is just absurd. I would love to meet the people who enjoy having it. And when people don't care about it, or are "unaffected" by an illness, that is actually also considered a pathological state in medicine: la belle indifference — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Words to watch is a guideline, There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. If the carefully considered opinion of the editors of an article disagrees with a guideline, other ways of expressing the information may be acceptable in context.
Also, I have attempted to clarify per WhatamIdoing, but without using a specific example. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever other objections there may be to using "afflicted with", it does not add any useful information. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, the range of cancer is so broad, and the definition at the edges so porous, that talking about "all cancer patients" is pretty much always wrong. While I don't imagine that most people "enjoy" having cancer overall, there are people for whom it's basically nothing (e.g., they have bigger problems; they're too young or too disabled/demented to understand the diagnosis), and cancers for whom the diagnosis is clinically unimportant (e.g., early non-melanoma skin cancers, which are so common and have so little effect on lifespan that they don't even count these cases in the cancer statistics; ~80% of males technically have prostate cancer by age 80, but it's usually so slow growing that they'll die of something else long before anyone would notice). There are also people for whom the experience of cancer has some desirable aspects, such as personal growth or getting to be the center of attention.

In the end, this means that it'd be factually wrong to say that "All women diagnosed with breast cancer suffer" from, well, anything, because some of those "women diagnosed with breast cancer" also happen to be "women with advanced Alzheimer's", and that subset will experience neither disruptive physical symptoms nor from the knowledge that if Alzheimer's wasn't going to kill them next year, then breast cancer might kill them in five or ten years. While there are strong trends (most women are diagnosed with breast cancer at a younger and healthier age), it does not apply to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I imagine you would predict, I agree with most of the above. It makes sense for prostate cancer etc, in which slow growing tumors cause very little actual physical suffering. But I would counter that emotional anxiety/fear of patients is still a factor so it's not like it's a walk in the park. All in all, I'm not that passionate about this and am not bothered that consensus disagrees with my position. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

>All in all, I'm not that passionate about this and am not bothered that consensus disagrees with my position.

That's wonderfully refreshing!

You do make reasonable points about how the experience isn't often a walk in the park. And in those cases it's fine (and I'd be in agreement with you) to include that information for specific individuals if there's clear citable evidence. (It's the challenge of generalizing broadly without evidence based on assumptions about others lived experiences).

Mason (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Issue"

EEng has deleted do not use “issue” for “problem” or “dispute”. [5] This is a recent change in use, which started out as a euphemism for ‘problem’ but seems to be treated as a standard usage by young people. There is now a semantic problem with this, because it may be unclear whether ‘issue’ is used to mean ‘issue’ or ‘problem’. So I would prefer if this wording was reinstated. But I’m not sure that it should be in the Euphemisms section. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how that differs from standard usage. Merriam-Webster has "1a(1): a vital or unsettled matter; 1a(2): concern, problem; and 1b: a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties".--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My dictionary (Oxford Concise) has it differently. The first meaning is about issues of shares, magazines, etc. Meaning 2 is about an outgoing, outflow etc. Meaning 3 ‘a point in question; an important subject of debate or litigation’ Meaning 4 ‘a result; an outcome; a decision’. Meaning 5 ‘ Law children, progeny’ Meaning 6 ‘ archaic a discharge of blood etc.’

There is no mention of ‘problem’.

So it may be that this is a difference between British and American English, as well as a difference between recent and traditional usage. ::Sweet6970 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So a problem or dispute are two kinds of issue, among many. Calling a problem or dispute an issue is a a way of "avoiding the issue", to get a bit circular in the metaphor... "Problem" and "dispute" are much clearer ways of specifying what kind of an issue (meaning OC3 or MW1a(2)) is being considered. As an encyclopedia, we should strive for clarity. I think recommending not using "issue" when the meaning can be expressed more accurately by "problem" or "dispute" is good guidance. When the dictionaries indicate that issue means the same thing, not just a similar thing, as problem or dispute, we can follow .Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that, but we certainly do not need an entry for it in MOS:WTW. There is no end to phrases and words that can potentially be used in a confusing way, often due to dialectal differences, but this guideline is about usages that are usually problematic and/or seriously problematic. As I said at a similar thread at WT:MOS, about differing US and UK expectations of terms like "tabled", someone should just write a style essay about this, which can grow arbitrarily detailed over time with examples of terms that can be used confusingly. MoS, however, is already over-long and adding more material to it is almost always controversial at this point. This just really is not the place to make nit-picking points about terms like "issue" or "tabled".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Adjustment of guideline re "controversial"

This page currently says:

"Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies"

I suggest that the words "describing an individual" be removed. The logic does not just apply to individuals but to anything that one might want to apply the word to. 82.132.214.74 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - as long as controversies are described in detail, I actually think this terminology is still applicable for events, places, etc. with no harm to the project. Would support adding "or organizations" to this however, as I think the same logic applies as with individuals. (namely, WP:BLP). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

lets take something that there would be no legal facets at all, like a concept or idea. Say, the legality of abortion or gay rights in general. We know there are multiple sides to this but we should not simply say its controversial because of that. we want sourcing for attributing that (which shouldnt be too hard), as simply having multiple sides doesnt make something controversial ( such as the various forms of quantum theory are more civilized debate and far from a controversy). Masem (t) 22:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Contentious Labels

Proposal: Insert a line in the Contentious labels section which reads "For labels like terrorist or freedom fighter which express an opinion on a person or group, establish who describes them as this (even if there is reliable sources describing them as such). One person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter."

Reasoning: This makes it clear that even if a reliable source describes the subject as a terrorist or freedom fighter, it should be clear this is still a POV. For example in the IRA article it has "It was designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland".

It makes sense for the situation around terrorist to be explained like "-gate" and "psuedo-" are, especially as MOS:TERRORIST links here.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Too common: Euphemism "issue", meaning "problem"

The word "issue" has become a commonly used euphemism for "problem". It is not a synonym. The use of "issue" came about from Microsoft's desire to avoid the the negativity of "problem", but a problem is a problem; an issue is an item under question or discussion.

Due to its nearly ubiquitous (mis)use, I propose adding it to the examples. BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the word ‘issue’ should not be used to mean ‘problem. But there has previously been a discussion about this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_13#%22Issue%22 Sweet6970 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales

The example at MOS:PERSONOROFFICE regarding the above should probably be changed, considering recent events. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral wording for Pro-life and Pro-choice

Pro-choice and pro-life#Media usage discusses that other words are typically used in style guides for pro-life and pro-choice. There is an RfC on Ohio Senate hopeful J. D. Vance which also mentions Tim_Ryan_(Ohio_politician). I am rewrite of the ledes, but I am not American and I am not certain what are the neutral words in the debate

PRO life vs Pro Choice

• "Use pro-choice, not pro-abortion; and use anti-abortion, not pro-life. Anti-choice can be used when talking about opposition to all reproductive rights, including abortion, birth control, family planning etc. In reference to US legislation, six-week abortion ban is preferable to foetal heartbeat bill, unless quoting someone talking about the “heartbeat bill”" Guardian

• but I am going for "On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion", but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights" NPR

Also is there Shorthand for the different stages, and reasons (and I am not sure how they are grouped)

• Six-week (pre fetal heartbeat)
• Late Term ??
• In case of rape, and incest
• Danger to mother
• Non-viable / Exposure to chemical/radiation [[teratogenic]s

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The wording Wikipedia seems to have settled on is to call them the "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" movements, at least according to Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ. So e.g. you can call a pro-life person "anti-abortion", and a pro-choice person an "abortion rights supporter" or "pro-abortion rights". Regarding shorthands, I don't think there are precise shorthands for different stages of pregnancy/reasons for abortion; in general I think it's better to be specific about different views or laws (e.g. "X supports bans on abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy"). Hope that helps. Endwise (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute over puffery and promotional text

I have had significant pushback to the removal of puffery and promotional content at Minneapolis. The opinion of others more familiar with puffery would be appreciated. Please see:

• Talk:Minneapolis#Photo caption
• Talk:Minneapolis#Deletions by Magnolia677
• Talk:Minneapolis#Dakota

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I have tried to give some suggestions there, although I'm not an expert on the matter. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, as far as I know, these discussions have been resolved peaceably. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Contentious label section

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

---

I propose adding the following,

Avoid terms like deniers, skeptics, or doubters. Explicitly describe the subject's opinion.

• He denies climate change.
• He disagrees with mainstream scientific research that shows the climate is changing.

AP stylebook suggests using this approach. Madame Necker (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this vague reference to AP related to this? Is there evidence that a significant number of worthwhile references say climate change doubters? I doubt it. Oppose. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan You are referring to an outdated version of AP stylebook, which is probably what causes your confusion. 2022 edition recommends against using doubter too. Madame Necker (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I only have access to the 55th (2020-2022) edition, not the 56th (2022-2024) edition, but for reference on what the 55th edition says:

Do not use terms like climate change deniers, climate change skeptics or climate change doubters. Be specific about an individual or group of people’s beliefs. For instance: people who do not agree with mainstream science that says the climate is changing. Or people who do not believe that human activity is responsible for the bulk of climate change. Or people who disagree with the severity of climate change projected by scientists.

I entirely agree with the AP stylebook here. But I don't think that "denier" or "doubter" are really value-laden words. They're more just imprecise, as the three examples given by the AP demonstrate (are you referring to people who say "the earth isn't warming", "it is warming but humans aren't responsible", or "anthropogenic climate change is real but it won't be as bad as the scientists say"?). I'm not sure where the AP's advice here should be written down, or if it even needs to be written down, but I do think the section on value-laden labels would not be appropriate. Endwise (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also avoid WP editors misclassifying these people and promote editors to explain more why someone disagrees with climate change/etc. Without engaging in excessive false balance. Masem (t) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, and dislike the tendency to label people rather than describing/explaining their views/actions, but I think MOS:LABEL should be more about labels which impart values, like "racist" or "terrorist". Endwise (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This would definitely apply to values, such as current terms climate change deniers and skeptics...both terms can be used to imprecisely paint how a person views climate change, which, when misused, tends to also attack their character. They can definitely be value-laden. Masem (t) 10:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I was also referring to the 55th edition. Thanks for correction. Madame Necker (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed because

(A) The section already includes "denialist" in the text box with sample value-laden labels, and each new word proposed here (skeptic, denier, doubter) is basically a synonym that is already included within the meaning if not the black-and-white text.

(B) The proposal uses Holy Commandment language (Do not use...) but the long standing section doesn't say that. Instead it says are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So this proposal would overrule that flexible guideline in place of "Do not use". No thanks; if the significant RS use the label we should too, but with inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is has been in the bix and not followed means its a problem. And per BLP we are required to take a more impartial, dispassionate tone, even if the press at large have opted for a different term. AP herre is driving the press away from this language so we absolutely catch up with them even if that means we abandon terms used in okder coverage. Masem (t) 04:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, not value-laden and potentially WP:CREEPy in that at this point you're not just referencing specific words but trying to dictate entire ways of covering entire topics, which is far outside the scope of this guideline. Additionally, it doesn't contain the requisite exception for using using the term when it is widely used in reliable sources to describe the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion Let's discuss wording, specifics, and exceptions instead of opposing the addition of a useful advice. @NewsAndEventsGuy proposal does not use command language, but tells to "avoid". Madame Necker (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per NewsAndEventsGuy, Aquillion, and Endwise. We already have "deniers" listed, and "skeptics" and "doubters" would just bludgeon the point. I'm not seeing any evidence of this being a problem that needs to be fixed at this point. Most articles I'm aware of may use "climate change denialist" as many of our RSes use similar or the same terms, per the existing MOS wording. But most of these also explain the specific person's views. Those that do not, should be changed per this MOS already. I empathize with the proposal, and understand what it's trying to do, but I don't think it would fix any of the suspected problems. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'm not sure if I support the specific change but I do support the general intent. Many sources are not careful about how they apply labels that can make it appear someone is outside of the acceptable window of reasonable (far-x, alt-x, X denier etc). Rather than adopt the terms of popular media or media that is trying to persuade, we should be trying to explain. Springee (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a bad idea. We need to be able to discuss denials and deniers. Andre🚐 16:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan This proposal allows us to discuss them without labeling them. Madame Necker (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hello @Madame Necker, it's great to see new editors such as yourself being so interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff at Wikipedia. However, your proposal does not sound sound. We have had similar discussions before, who were riddled with issues (and at least a few socks trying to push a political agenda). I agree we need to discuss people fairly (but we have WP:BLP for that); and I do not see an issue beyond that. Some people are denying the Armenian genocide, and it's good that we can describe that without having to resort to complicated wording which makes it seem as denying a well-documented event is acceptable. Here in Germany, we actually have a law against denying the Holocaust. But I digress; this suggestion would indeed just introduce WP:CREEP. Again, I point to WP:BLP and similar, we already tell people to cite sources (even "Western" sources are acceptable, yes). --LordPeterII (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Upon reading this written out, I feel like I should apologize for being a tad passive-aggressive or implying things. @Madame Necker I was checking your contributions and became sceptical, since you only edited in a few very controversial areas and ended up here rather quickly. I am not implying you are a sock, it's just that I've had previous bad experience on this page (the aforementioned "similar discussions"), so I'm on high alert if I see anything unusual. I realise you were likely meaning well, so please see my reaction in this context. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @LordPeterII, I too believe you were well intentioned. Last week, I had had a bicycle accident and now after reading your reply I can understand why some of my comments might have sounded rude to my sister. We are humans and stress sometimes causes us to do unfortunate things. I think you are a hardworking editor and I deeply sympathize with you. Madame Necker (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose formally, since I forgot to do so while semi-ranting above. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, this veers on censorship. We need to be able to discuss those who deny fact. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Because 1) The proposed example alternative to "He denies climate change" is needlessly verbose; and 2) The meaning of the short version is quite clear. BMJ-pdx (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
• Propose Alternative. I'm exactly the kind of person who would normally support a change like that. But I can't, due to the way it's worded. The two sentences are identical in meaning, the second is just more verbose. Here's what I propose instead: if most WP:NEWSORGs say Bob "denies climate change" (as a shorthand for "denies the scientific consensus on climate change"), but when they quote him, he says the climate is changing but not due to humans (which is still against the scientific consensus, so technically WP:NEWSORGs aren't lying), then we shouldn't say "denies climate change", we should say "denies that humans cause climate change". That's not being excessively promotional, or promoting his views, it's just being accurate, as an encyclopedic biography should be. I'd rather not open a new discussion, so could the Oppose voters weigh in on my modification? DFlhb (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. NPOV is not whitewashing, and I can’t emphasize this enough. Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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