Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Proposal to add term to "contentious labels" section

WP:SNOW close Andre🚐 23:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

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.

Hello. "right" and "left" (i.e. "far-right" and "far-left") be added to our list of contentious labels.

"Far-right" and "far-left", while the terms have been debated by political scholars and theorists, have no real agreed-upon definition. There is no academic consensus about what they mean, there's no way to reliably and consistently determine what makes someone's leftness or rightness "far", other than to consult one's own opinion about the matter. In fact, the terms are not statements of fact, and are practically never used outside the realm of persuasive political writing. Furthermore, unlike the basic descriptors "left" and "right", "far" left and "far" right are almost always used in a disparaging way that aims to dismiss the opinions of the person or group being described. Nobody describes themselves or those with whom they agree as "far right" or "far left" - the labels are only applied by those who dislike or wish to dismiss the person or group being thusly labeled. They are non-neutral descriptors that imply a negative value judgement. In this way, the terms are similar to "terrorist" or "racist". See Loaded language.

The terms should be avoided and neutral, encyclopedic descriptors should be used instead. An example of a good way to handle this is Shining Path, which, even though it meets most people's colloquial definition of a far-left terrorist group, does not use either of these terms in the first sentence, and never uses the terms as factual descriptions in Wikivoice. If the terms "far-left" and "far-right" are widely used by reliable sources to describe a subject, they should be included in the article's subject, but should always be attributed using in-text citation, rather than in-line citation, and should never be represented as blanket, neutral encyclopedic descriptions of fact.

Please discuss. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Bad idea. Stick to the sources. The Red Army Faction is far-left and this shouldn't be obfuscated by Wikipedia processology. Bon courage (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The Red Army Faction is far-left, just like Shining Path is a terrorist group. Maybe that's a "fact", maybe that's my opinion, but that's irrelevant to the matter. Cherry-picking one example that you personally opine is "far left", even if you think that opinion has factual merit, isn't a justification for the widespread use of loaded language to describe many subjects that do not meet one coherent definition of "far left" or "far right". The terms have become little more than smears that indicate "I don't like this person or group and wish to categorize them as outside the realm of acceptable political discourse". They are used in the realm of persuasive writing.
It's also not a question of sticking or not sticking to sources. I actually agree 100% with your point that we should stick to the sources - when contentious labels or value-laden language are used by RS, we should still note them as a notable view held by reliable sources on a topic - we should just use in-text citation, rather than in-line, as this manual of style already recommends for a variety of terms, like "racist" and "terrorist", that one could argue are factual descriptors of some people and groups. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
You'd need to provide some evidence this is an actual problem if the community is to consider a remedy is required, I'd suggest. Bon courage (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I do think it's an actual problem. What form might that evidence take, in your opinion?
I'm trying to approach this by wrapping my mind around why the currently listed "words to watch" are a "problem". For instance, there appears to be consensus that using "terrorist" as a neutral, encyclopedic descriptor is not appropriate and, even if RS use the term, those RS should cited using in-text attribution, rather than repeating the descriptor "terrorist" in a factual tone in Wikivoice with either no citation or in-text citation. How could one provide evidence that using the term "terrorist" as an encyclopedic descriptor is problematic or value-laden, even if, on a case-by-case basis, a fact-based argument could be presented that a person or group's actions meet the most common academic definitions of terrorism?
My understanding of value-laden language as described in this manual of style is that, even if one could present a logical argument that the value-laden language (racist, terrorist, "far" left) is accurate, it should still be treated differently than an assertion of unambiguous, easily definable fact, like "the capital of France is Paris". Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Evidence would take the form of article text and/or disputes (beyond the common-on-garden AP POV wars) indicating an issue. Sometimes these words-to-watch are just a matter of convention: in medicine for example Wikipedia hardly ever asserts something is "quackery" (even when it obviously is), but rather says it "has been characterized as quackery". Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel like we actually agree. I'm agreeing with the stylistic convention that you mention here, and am further suggesting that Wikipedia should hardly ever assert someone is a "terrorist", "racist", or "far" left/right, even if everyone on the English Wikipedia might agree that some groups are terrorist or far-left groups. Rather it should state "he has been characterized as a terrorist by (list RS)" or "they have been described by sources X, Y, and Z as far-left".
I could make a list of articles that use "far right" and "far left" as descriptions of fact in Wikivoice, either with no citation at all or mere in-line citation. Would that, in your view, constitute evidence of a problem? If not, can you suggest an alternate way such evidence could be collected and presented? Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
You'd need to show actual problems. We have entire categories of things that are (e.g.) "far left": Category:Far-left politics in Greece. Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "actual problems", but I do very much wish to understand what you mean. "Far-left" and "far-right" are widely used yet value-laden, disparaging terms, akin to "terrorist", "racist", and other descriptors that are listed under "words to watch". These terms are being presented as factual, encyclopedic descriptors on a variety of articles, with either no citation or in-line citation where in-text citation is more in keeping with NPOV. That is the problem. We also have entire categories of things that are "terrorism" - that doesn't change the fact that "terrorist" is recognized and handled as a clearly value-laden term, even if it might be used in a colloquial manner in RS.
NPOV states "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." Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
What articles have had these "far-x" terms applied badly, in your view? Bon courage (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how many articles you think is enough to count as "a problem", and I don't want to be accused of bludgeoning the point, so here's a short list:
Articles in which "far left" and "far right" are used as encyclopedic descriptions of fact in Wikivoice without any citation:
Red Army Faction
Prima Linea
Red Brigades
David Duke
Articles in which "far left" and "far right" are sourced to in-line citations, but where the terms are presented as encyclopedic descriptions of fact in Wikivoice in a manner that is inconsistent with NPOV and policies surrounding contentious & value-laden labeling:
Dorothy Moon
The Grayzone
National Rally
Gatestone Institute
This is far from an exhaustive list - I could triple it - but is merely a small representative sample to show that this is an issue, not just an isolated problem with one or two articles. I think these articles are examples of how *not* to use contentious labels like far left or terrorist, and I think the simplest, most elegant way to address them is to include "far" right and "far" left in our list of "contentious labels" and "words to watch". This way, all reliably sourced material is preserved, and every instance of "far right" and "far left" doesn't have to turn into an extremely detailed and technical philosophical argument about the epistemological nature of facts vs. opinions, the underlying assumptions of the left-right spectrum, the myriad incongruent attempts at scholarly definitions of the terms, and the nature of loaded language just to determine if the terms are validly applied.
Note that one could have similarly detailed debates about whether or not a certain group is a "terrorist" group, but editors have wisely come to the consensus that this is not useful, and it is better to handle contentious labels differently than factual descriptions, even if those contentious labels are used as factual descriptions in the popular press or other generally reliable sources
I'd also note that the majority of articles on Wikipedia about, for instance, communist and fascist thinkers, news outlets, and political groups do *not* use contentious labels like "far left" or "far right" in a factual tone, tending to use neutral descriptors, and giving due weight to contentious labels applied by reliable sources by providing an in-text, attributed citation to those RS.
An example of a good way to handle these labels is Shining Path. The group would meet almost anyone's colloquial definition of "terrorist" and "far left", but the opening sentence (after extensive debate within the article's edit history) opted for a neutral, descriptive tone, and contentious labels used by reliable sources, while still discussed in the lead and given due weight, are cited in the text and attributed, rather than in Wikivoice as encyclopedic facts that are on the level of "the capital of Rwanda is Kigali".
Note: I am *not* arguing that the words "far left" and "far right" should be removed from articles where the phrases are sourced to reliable sources. Not a single citation in any of the articles I listed above would be removed as a result of my suggestion. I am merely arguing that these are contentious and inherently disparaging labels, and that citing RS when RS use contentious labels should be done in a manner consistent with NPOV. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:YESPOV generally applies. If something is accepted knowledge, attributing it brings its own POV problem by making it seem contended. David Duke would be an obvious example, and in his case "far-right" is pretty much definitional. Sure, these terms shouldn't be thrown around but that's true for anything in the realm of WP:BLPs. Shining Path is labelled "far-left" in its infobox, which seems pretty plain. I'm not really seeing a problem, and if the suggestion is that Wikipedia cannot assert that David Duke is far-right, then the problem would be in the proposal not the existing situation. Of course in WP:AP2 there's often all kinds of tedious disputes wanting inappropriate labels applied (or removed) all kinds of things, but the problem there is POV-warrior editors not necessarily Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point here big-time. When I read NPOV's main page, I see that it says "avoid asserting facts as opinions", but it also says "avoid asserting opinions as facts". That means, with any given claim, a debate must be held about whether that claim should be labeled a "fact" or an "opinion". You assert, without evidence or argument, that far right and far left are empirical descriptions of fact that can be labeled as "accepted knowledge", which is, at best, a highly dubious and contestable assertion that opens up a huge philosophical can of worms.
You also don't address my central thesis, which is, whether these terms are descriptions of fact or opinion, they are loaded and contentious terms that, in modern political discourse, are only used to disparage and dismiss the subject, and almost only in the realm of persuasive writing. In this way, they are similar to the label "terrorist", which is only used by people who don't like the group being thusly described. You could make arguments that Al-Qaeda or Shining Path are "terrorists", and that this label is "accepted knowledge" and "definitional". Or you could just assert that it is so, without even presenting an argument, and rely on your "gut feeling" about the matter. But even if you did present interesting arguments to this effect, it wouldn't matter, because Wikipedians have wisely recognized that opening up that philosophical and political can of worms over and over and over again isn't productive.
It's best to handle contentious labels, whether they're "true" or not, differently than mere assertions of objective fact, like "water is wet". Situations like this are the whole reason this list of "contentious labels" was created. "Far left" and "far right", whether you think that they're empirical descriptions of fact or expressions of opinion, clearly merit being treated as contentious labels and should be added to this list alongside "neo-Nazi", "terrorist", and "racist". I hope others will enter this discussion, because I feel like you and I might start going in circles here if you choose not to address my proposal in more detail, but if a clear and overwhelming unanimous consensus amongst many editors isn't reached here, I think I'll have to follow Wikipedia:Be bold, add them myself, and force someone to make a cogent argument to justify their opposition. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see now this an attempt to do a meta end-run around a RfC at Talk:The Grayzone which is WP:SNOWballing against you. You'd do well to heed the wisdom of the comments there. I have nothing more to say on this topic. Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the complete lack of engagement with any of the points made above speaks volumes about the logical & evidentiary basis for your position. I'm starting to realize that people defend using the terms "far left" and "far right" in Wikivoice simply because it feels good to apply disparaging labels to subjects that editors personally find distasteful, even though no serious argument can be mustered in defense characterizing the labels as empirical descriptions of fact. This doesn't mean that people are acting in bad faith, it just demonstrates that, for most, one's implicit biases are so strong and so un-scrutinized that they can't be distinguished from empirical reality.
There is, sadly, painfully little wisdom reflected in the comments at the RFC, most of which strawman or completely ignore the argument made, and display a very elementary misunderstanding of epistemology, the nature of facts and opinions, and what NPOV actually says. That is why I've shifted my focus from the article level to the policy level. Thanks for engaging here in good faith, but I haven't seen any indication that you have something productive or original to add to the discussion, so I support your decision to refrain from further comments. Philomathes2357 ([[User talk:Philomathes2357|talk) 18:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far-right politics and Far-left politics are real and studied by academics and widely discussed in reliable sources. Trying to eliminate or minimize use of these terms when well-referenced is a disservice to our readers. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    How would you respond to this, @Cullen328: one could say the exact same thing about the terms "neo-Nazi", "racist" and "terrorist", which are on this list. All three are "real" in the sense that they are abstract concepts that have been given a definition and applied to people, and they are all "studied by academics" and "widely discussed in reliable sources". You could even muster a logical argument that a given group is "factually" terrorist, neo-Nazi, etc...but they are on this list, I think, because they are negative, disparaging, Loaded language, and often tell you as much about the person using them as they tell you about the thing being thusly described. If "studied by academics" and "widely discussed in reliable sources" are criteria for exclusion from this list, why have such a list at all?
    I'm also not proposing that the terms be eliminated, or even minimized in cases when they are, indeed, used by reliable sources. All I am proposing is that 1) when they are used, they must be sourced to at least one reliable source, and 2) when they are used, they are attributed to their source, rather than declared as empirical fact in Wikipedia's voice. The easiest way to ensure this would be to add them to the "contentious labels" section, which include many other similar political terms. Zero cited references to the terms "far right" and "far left" would be removed from Wikipedia under this proposal. I'm struggling to see why this would be controversial. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Please do not bludgeon the discussion with more TLDR posts. I oppose adding these terms to this list. Cullen328 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    I asked you a question. It's a few sentences quoting your comment word-for-word, responding to it, and directly requesting a clarification of your position on how a specific policy is interpreted. How is that a bad thing?
    If you, or anyone else, were able or willing to provide such a clarification in a way that addresses my serious and obvious questions, I'd have dropped this issue a long time ago, so if you're annoyed that I'm still seeking clarification on specific issues, instead of blaming me and making me out to be some sort of bad actor, why not just clarify them? It should be simple and would be a lot more constructive than "here's a snide and lazy rebuttal to a strawman of your position, now go to hell", which is the vibe I'm getting. If this is too boring and TLDR for you, and you can't be bothered to steelman my position and discuss it in good faith, why bother commenting in the first place? Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm also opposed. In the specific sense, I see "far-right" and "far-left" treated by high-quality sources as factual descriptors and not value judgements. In the general sense, I oppose any expansion to the list, as I believe this guideline to sometimes be at odds with WP:NPOV, guiding users to state "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions" as attributed opinions. I'm not the first to say so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that there are tensions between NPOV and other policies, and also tensions within different parts of NPOV. The discussion you linked to is extremely lively and fascinating, with a lot of interesting arguments presented, thank you for sharing it.
It sounds like, by opposing any expansion to this list because of it being "at odds with NPOV", you may actually be arguing that the "controversial labels" guideline shouldn't exist at all. Is that a fair assessment? If not, what is your view on the "controversial labels" guideline in general? Does it serve any useful purpose?
I think a core issue here is how Wikipedia defines "facts" and "opinions". NPOV states in its opening guidelines both "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating facts as opinions", so clearly, there must be consensus on what these words mean here. Where do facts ("The capital of Paris is France") end and opinions ("Joe Biden is ugly") begin, according to Wikipedia's policy?
Would you say the following is an accurate summary of Wikipedia's policy on what makes a reliably-sourced claim a fact?
If one or more reliable sources make any claim on any issue in an assertive tone of voice, and no reliable sources have asserted that the specific claim in question is false or controversial, then Wikipedia should treat the claim, whether it is an empirical fact or an opinion, as an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" and assert the same claim in Wikipedia's voice?
If that is not an accurate summary, could you offer one that, in your view, is more precise? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hard SNOW Oppose and topic ban OP this is getting ridiculous. Every time Philomathes2357 gets refuted on this topic, they IMMEDIATELY open a new thread, but not after accusing someone of bad faith and filibustering the discussion out endlessly with massive text walls. Dronebogus (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Far-left/right are terms, akin to "terrorism", where in some circles there is a strong definition with delination from not-quite-as-extreme ideologies (eg the academic sources looking at long-term pictures mentioned by others above). However, they are also terms thrown about by mainstream sources in their short-term coverage of a topic that are on the vague side of things. As such they should be treated as labels, but with the understanding that if we have numerous or a high percentage of RSes using the term related to a topic, with more weight given to academic and long-term sources, that that implies a more factual approach that does not require the use of attribution. If we're talking about only a half-dozen sources using "far-left/right" about a topic out of hundreds, that's better reason to treat it as a label, and if inclusion is still appropriate per UNDUE, using attribution with its inclusion. Basically, we don't want the case where an editor cherry-picks a couple of sources to use that label and then write it as wikivoice. That said, this is nearly true of all labels identified on this page. --Masem (t) 03:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
So… basically the current situation is perfectly fine? Dronebogus (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
It should be added, but the implicit treatment of when labels should be included and if/when we need to use attribution or when we can drop that is there. If that needs to be clarified more, that's a UNDUE or NPOV issue. Masem (t) 04:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, cool. I still think this whole proposal is just OP trying to wiki-lawyer around the overwhelming consensus against their desired changes to The Greyzone, though. Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't delved into any depth of what's at the Grayzone but as written there is exactly only one source that appears to describe it as far-left. If that is all the sites that call it far-left, then per UNDUE, that designation is even out out of line (and doing a google news search, this is not a common combination) If there are more sites, then you need to figure out what proportion of the sites claim the Grayzone is far-left to determine if attribution should be used or can remain factual. In either case, there absolutely must be more expansion about why it is called far-left in the body of the article, otherwise that looks 100% like a cherry-picked label. Masem (t) 04:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
See talk page, numerous respected sources are in agreement on the descriptor. Dronebogus (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Then the body absolutely needs expansion to include those sources and rationales or examples from those sources as to why the term applies. Throwing out any label just because it fits from sources isn't helpful. Putting out the label and backing that with a sourced explanation is more neutral without dismissing the label's appropriateness. Masem (t) 14:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what wiki-lawyering means, but I do know this: this is only tangentially related to The Grayzone. While I do believe the use of "far-left" in Wikivoice in the first sentence of the Grayzone article is concerning, I opened a new forum at this page because I discovered that many articles use the terms in the first sentence, mostly unsourced or dubiously sourced. The problem is much more widespread than one article.
I also discovered this and this, two thoughtful articles by established academic experts in the subject of political ideas, both of which make the case that these "far" descriptors are, at the very least, "contentious". The notion that these labels are used in American political discourse indiscriminately, including in news outlets, is far from a bizarre, novel idea.
So no, this is unrelated to me not getting a "desired change" on an article, this is a discovery of, in my view, a broad systemic bias within English Wikipedia, about which I'm attempting to collect serious ideas, opinions, and policy citations. If the ideas, opinions, and policies aren't what I might want them to be, that's fine, I will keep making relevant proposals and asking relevant policy questions until I'm satisfied that either 1) I was incorrect to conclude that there is systemic bias that should be addressed, or 2) I've done something about it and moved things in a direction that makes Wikipedia a healthier and more reliable source of information. Your constant glib, snide comments and accusations of bad faith are getting tiresome, @Dronebogus. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you somehow not understand why other editors might be getting annoyed with your extremely long, repetitive, barely sourced comments on controversial topics on thread after thread (all of which you started, sometimes before one on the same topic is closed)? Dronebogus (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Am I understanding your point correctly: "far left and far right should be added to the list of controversial labels, but the text of the controversial labels guideline that mandates in-text citation of reliable sources is in need of more nuance". Is that a fair summary? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I would add them, and say that right now how UNDUE/NPOV handle layers in conjunction with the instructions on this page are fine, but if editors keep cherry-picking a label that's only used in one or two sources, we may need to fix that. Masem (t) 04:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
They don’t, at least not on the greyzone. There’s like 12 reliable sources for the statement. Dronebogus (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion of the Grayzone at that talk page, as it's tangential to the discussion here. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I see two issues here. First, should this be added to the list? As the list isn't meant to be all encompassing, no it doesn't need to be added even if we agree to treat it as a contentious label. Second, is it, at least at times, a contentious/value laden label? Yes. The "far-" prefix to whatever term is often problematic in that it is added without a clear definition and often creates negative associations. For example, look at our definition of Far-right politics and see some of the things we say are part of far-right politics. The same is true of our far-left politics definition. Applying a label to someone/something that associates them with the Nazi party or far-left genocide should be seem as a contentious label. Yes, we often see those terms used by media in sources that are effectively trying to persuade readers that a group's actions/ideas etc are a problem. However, the specific definition or why they are using the "far-" label may not be clear in the reporting. A reporter might say "Senator X is hard left" not because they want any of the great negatives in our far-left politics article but because they refuse to compromise on things like universal healthcare. They will veto any bill that doesn't bring us closer to universal healthcare. In that regard they aren't "far-left" so much as "uncompromising". They are also far from genocide or other evils associated with far-left. Another frequent issue with these labels is the "sourced to a RS" argument when it's included. Yes, often we can find a reporter who uses the term. However, we really need to ask, is this a near universal descriptor or just one used sometimes and in articles that are trying to sway the reader? If the subject really is "far-" then the article body should contain the information needed to support that label. If the article actually contains all the needed facts then the inclusion of the label becomes superfluous. If the article doesn't then including it and the link to our definitions becomes almost a type of OR. Yes, RSs use the label but our link implies a meaning that the RSs don't. So yes, it should be seen as a contentious label and we should only include it in wikivoice when it can be shown that a large percentage of sources use the term, not just 10 sources after a keyword search. Also, in general I don't think it's useful to say, "sources describe X as far-...". Again, we should show via the article vs tell what others who may not have been careful in the use of the term say. Springee (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
If we're in agreement that the terms are, at least at times, contentious and value-laden, it seems like the simplest and most elegant solution to their unsourced or cherry-picked proliferation would be to add the terms to this list. Can you clarify why, even though you seem to agree with the premise that the terms are value-laden, you oppose their addition to the list? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose To limit what terms can be used, even though those are the terms used by the weight of reliable sources is just wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose There is nothing to avoid here. Wikipedia isn't censored, even if the Grayzone would prefer not to be described this way 166.205.97.61 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose this idea, we have to be able to call water wet. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you oppose the very existence of this list, then, because "we have to be able to call terrorists terrorists" or "we have to be able to call racists racist?" I feel like your rationale could be equally applied to most of the labels that are already on this list. Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
If that is what a large number of RS calls them then of course, just as we say. We by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, that's not Wikipedia policy as it relates to contentious labeling. Even if RS calls a group "terrorist", the label has to be cited with in-text citation, since it's a value-laden term that implies that the author has an opinion on the matter. Do you disagree with that policy? Would you support calling, say, Al-Qaeda a "terrorist" group in Wikivoice in the opening sentence, if RS have described it thusly? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Personally I would. We should avoid the appearance of MOS:WEASEL such as "some people say" or "some sources say". So how do we attribute a claim made by multiple RS without resorting to weasel words? Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I still think in-text citation is the best way to handle it. WEASEL seems to be a problem when these weasel words are applied to claims that aren't tied to reliable sources.
The WEASEL guidelines state that "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies."
Based on my reading of this, a reliable source may "analyze and interpret" a group as far-left or terrorist, and that merits inclusion in the article, but to elevate the "analysis and interpretation" to the level of empirical fact without attributing a source seems like it could also run into "no original research" and NPOV issues.
Not with basic facts. Certainly, nobody would argue that we need to write "according to the French government, every published world map, and every expert, Paris is the Capital of France". But there is a line where facts end and opinions/interpretation begins, and I think, in order to be NPOV-compliant, we need to be very mindful of where a given claim is on that spectrum
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it feels like your argument against this proposal is implicitly an argument against the contentious labels guidelines themselves. Is that fair or inaccurate? Philomathes2357 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
In the body of an article, it is easy to follow up a statement like "Some sources say the group is left-wing..." with a handful if sources and additional statements to show a reasonable chunk of sources agree of that term (around 4 to 6 in this format). It is not necessary to include all sources that say it and end up with a list of twenty plus works. In the case if the kede, where we still cannot use the label in wikivoice, a statement like "The group has been described as left-wing by some publications..." tells me that that additional info should be available in the body. What we want to avoid is the hand waving around "some" without explicit discussion of those "some" which makes it a weasel word. Masem (t) 17:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
You assert as self-evident fact "we cannot use the label in wikivoice", but it seems like a lot of people disagree, some angrily so. At least one editor has been patrolling my edit history and, almost every time I remove an unsourced "far" descriptor that's in Wikivoice, they insta-revert me. Obviously, the consensus here is against your assertion that we cannot use such labels in wikivoice, even though you seem to be confident in your assertion, as I am also confident in the position I've taken on the matter - so what's the best, most productive way forward here? Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
In my mind there are three cases re labels. One extreme is when only one or two sources use the label, at which point the question of how DYE that us needs to be made, and if inclusion is warranted, then attribution must be included. At the other extreme is when the label is used in a plurslity/majority of sources, particularly those that are in academia and separated by time from the topics time period. In such a case, the term is obviously DUE and because if mass agreement, no attribution is required. The in between cases, when a good number, but not a plurality or majority use the label, 8s the difficult case. The term is likely DUE, but the lack of widespread use means we should try to attribute it, even if that leads to the "some sources say" wording. Where the line is drawn between needed attribution and saying it in wikivoice is blurry initially, and thus difficult to agree on, but as time progresses and more academic and distanced sources appear, the line should resolve better. Masem (t) 18:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I think another factor that should come into play is are we dealing with references about the far-x source/person/group or are we using sources that mention them and either use the label as a short hand or fail to justify why they use it? It means far more when the source explains why the label applies. This is especially true as there isn't a standard definition of "far-right/left" and the Wikipedia articles, which are often linked when we use the term, really focus on the negative extremes. Springee (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is ultimately a failure on lots of articles that use labels, with or without attribution. Editors tend to want to use labels to paint things negatively, but never stop to actually write about the reason the label us used by RSes. We want a few bits that explain activities or statements why such labels apply. This is what a group like SPLC does when writing up a group on their hate watch list, they fully justify reasons to include. Our fault tends to be using labels (backed by sources) but not backing up the reason the label applies. That should be default for any type of contentious information, to explain why it is contentious. Masem (t) 22:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - These are real academic terms that are used in academic literature that we cite constantly. It appears the concern of this section is better solved with application of NPOV rather than just changing the way we discuss these things. If the literature says the term, we should as well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I think when we have quality sources explaining why the label applies or what definition of the label they mean then we are good. However, when media sources use the term almost casually and without saying why they applied it we should be careful about using it in our articles. In those cases it's effectively a claim without evidence. Springee (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Springee is making a good point. These terms essentially have two definitions, a technical, academically-debated definition, and a popular, colloquial definition. We should take care, when a reliable source uses the terms in a colloquial manner, not to suggest to our readers that the label is being used in a technical, academic way. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, regarding Nobody describes themselves or those with whom they agree as "far right" or "far left": this is simply untrue. See, for example, Anne S. of Seattle, quoted by the New York Times: I am as angry as the Tea Partiers at all of the bailouts, and I am far left of center on most social and political issues. Or this hotel manager: I am far left leaning politically, so working here has been somewhat of a challenge for me. Or this by Michelle Malkin: Jason is CEO and founder of the famed Lava Records and as far left on the political spectrum as I am far right. Or this from Wales: On being arrested his response was to laugh and then, when he got to the police station he said: ‘Basically I am far right and you guys don’t like it’. People do sometimes align themselves with extreme labels as a point of pride. Second, as others have said above, we go where the sources lead. Sure, "far left" and "far right" are thrown around in polemical pieces, but we filter those out anyway. This proposal would make Wikipedia less informative, all in the name of being anodyne. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - so many reasons, including WP:YESPOV, this is the real world and so long as our sources are sufficient we should be reflecting reality, as just above not everyone denies it, etc. I see that the OP has been indefinitely blocked for a variety of reasons, some mentioned above. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    The thing is that these remain words that can be objective in the long term by
    Ut very subjective in the short term. As an example "cult" is a label, but given enough time by academic analysis and sources distanced from the events at hand, it can become a fact in Wikivoice. Just because a few sources now use the label doesn't mean we can use it in wikivoice (eg the way it is handled at QAnon). So while there are certainly things that can be spoken as far left or right as fact in wikivoice due to enough time and sources, there are topics (which may include this Grayzone) which we need to use more care, and thus the terms should be treated as labels until the bulk of sources support it as fact. Masem (t) 14:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Many of the arguments seemed to be based on assuming that the question was one that was never asked: "Shall we ban the use of these terms?" . The actual question (in my wording) was "shall the extra precautions in the "contentious terms" section be applied to these terms?" There are cases of extremes where these terms clearly apply. Much more commonly is when it is arguable, and it is a subjective pejorative (including in "sources") to deprecate the target as being extreme. IMO the higher cautions in the contentious terms section would be good to apply to these terms. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    I thought it was to add those words to the list that is in the section in MOS (as if it is A, exhaustive, and B, Prohibiative). Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think North8000 is correct here. These are contentious labels. They aren't prohibited. The list isn't comprehensive. When we use them, especially in wiki voice, we should take extra care and make sure hyperlinked definitions are appropriate. Springee (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Slatersteven, I don't understand your post.North8000 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    • The OP was asking to add "the word "far", when placed before the political descriptors" to the list of examples in contentious labels. with (based upon their statements) the clear implication that would be banned from being used to label people. The problem is why do these uses need to be explicitly named, rather than others? Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
    Based on the OP’s history of incessantly sealioning in favor of banning “far-x” as non neutral (and subsequent block for that, among other reasons), I think assuming this is a Trojan horse for banning is correct. Dronebogus (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Please focus on the question not the editor. Springee (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - for all the reasons editors already said Softlemonades (talk) 16:13, 19 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.

Presume/presumably

Should 'presumably' be used in an article. If there is doubt about something that is written should we not use 'probably'. Not sure if this is the right place to ask - it didn't seem to fit the description of a 'weasel word' johnmark†:Talk(talk to me) 19:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as banning the words from articles, but in general we should say who is doing the presuming if they belong in any particular one. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Phil. Good point. In the article I was looking at it seems that it was the editor doing the presuming rather than any source that they were quoting. So that particular occurrence needs to be worded differently. I will think how to do it. johnmark†:Talk(talk to me) 21:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Add subset terms (including, among, etc.)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Vocabulary contains a subsection on subset terms, which are terms that "identif[y] a set of members of a larger class," like including, among, and etc.

Examples:

  • Among the most well-known members of the fraternity are...
  • Members of the Onassis family include...
  • Do not correct others' spelling mistakes, grammar, etc.

Shouldn't these subset terms be avoided/"watched" by Wikipedia editors? I don't think they are as much a "vocabulary" issue as I think they are "words to watch," so they may be a better fit here, in the Expressions that lack precision section.

— Massmediazealot (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding "the" type groupings

AP Style book put out the following tweet [1] recommending to avoid using "the" type terms that can be dehumanizing, like "the poor" ot "the mentally-ill". This seems reasonable Land it is not a form I see used in any great frequency on WP, so this seems like something we can add to this page. Masem (t) 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a problem why WP:CREEP? But - "The French" is now banned as dehumanizing!? Wikipedia should avoid such US nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
AP Stylebook deleted that tweet since their inclusion of "the French" was met with backlash/confusion, as seen in your comment. They clarified the next morning in this tweet that what they mean is writing "French people" or "French citizens" is better than writing "the French", as using "the" terms for any group of people "can sound dehumanizing and imply a monolith rather than diverse individuals."
—Massmediazealot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
AP really need some English lessons, if they think "The French love to start their day with a croissant" is dehumanizing. Also, I'm sure Wikipedia could have lots of fun not writing "the Nazis" when referring to, err, the Nazis. The whole thing is silly. Bon courage (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I support this addition.
Another example of this is "others" as a (lazy) stand-in term for a group of people. To cite an example on WP, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines currently contains "others" 13 times. For example, it says, "Explaining [your views/opinion] helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus" and "Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic." Using "others" like this is not only weird and WP:Vague (and falls under WP:Please clarify), but yes a bit dehumanizing too. Especially when in this case it can be easily improved to "other editors/contributors/users" instead of just "others." (The page also contains 2 mentions of "another's" that is written in the same way, i.e., unfollowed by a noun, albeit it seems less dehumanizing—perhaps because it is singular and not plural?)
AP Stylebook clarified their tweet the next day in this tweet thread. To summarize, they recommend avoiding general “the” labels such as 'the poor,' 'the mentally ill,' 'the wealthy,' 'the disabled,' 'the college-educated.' They recommend to instead use wording such as 'people with mental illness' or 'wealthy people.' They add, "Use these descriptions only when clearly relevant" and "Be specific when possible and relevant, such as 'people with incomes below the poverty line.'"
It appears some critics are calling it woke because the AP also recommends that instead of "homeless people" folks should write "people who are homeless" or "people [who are] experiencing homelessness."
I've experienced people in real life saying "blacks" and "gays" to refer to "black people" and "gay people", which can be grouped with this idea/addition, as it carries the same tone. Not only can those terms sound dehumanizing but they tend to be awkward too.
Another related example is "females". I doubt it's written much on WP since it tends to be more urban/controversial, but I would assume "women" and "men" are written similarly, i.e., (lazily) without much specificity.
—Massmediazealot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:English rhetorical questions

Classification doesn’t seem to validate rhetoric which is designed to misargue to off put the point through clever connectives or proximity. example: A man goes to court to sue a department store of a faulty coffee grinder. The court dismisses the case for no grounds. Which is exactly the point of a defective coffee grinder.

I believe the actual account of Rhetoric or Rhetorical is often Comedy or Tragedy 

 sometimes the muse the magician or the storyteller of novel ideas. Often found in pride or honor such as the poem Invictus.

The current example page https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_rhetorical_questions seems derogatory ad hominem condescending sarcasm. NousernamedJoshuar (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

An article with over 50 edits and doesn’t pass the first two reference points? Is there any option to flag a article to be removed from online viewing until full authorship is correct? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paris_School_of_International_Affairs&getasktype=copyedit&gesuggestededit=1&geclickid=b8gsv6vbkgpcpm4n8ftb2trtpp0pf7el&genewcomertasktoken=gqv0cuk4aelnjv839f7eeto54g13bkgu NousernamedJoshuar (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Garnering

Is there a guideline on replacing hackneyed language? Is there a list of such language that Wikipedians recommend avoiding? It seems to me that nowhere are awards garnered, rather than simply won, as abundantly as they are on Wikipedia. There's so much garnering here. Largoplazo (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not quite a Peacock word, but to me garner has a whiff of wangle or finagle. —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Garnered means, per dictionary.com: "acquired or earned". DonIago (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Does (or should) this guideline apply to statements that are described as racist in addition to people who are described as racist?

Weeks ago, I cited the following part of this guideline:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, 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.

To my surprise, User:SPECIFICO argued that in-text attribution is not necessary when we label a person’s statement as racist, instead of saying the person himself/herself is a racist. That distinction seems silly to me, so I hope this guideline can be edited to make explicit what is already clearly implicit. To be safe, I won’t make the edit myself, although perhaps I could per WP:PGBOLD. Full disclosure: I contributed to an RFC today at Talk:Scott Adams that involved charges of racism[2] Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

nO, we should go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, but if RS says a person is a racist then we must use in-text attribution per this guideline to say that instead of using wikivoice. My question is whether we can avoid that requirement of in-text attribution by saying in wikivoice that person X said racist things, instead of saying person X is a racist. One way to address this matter is by adding a sentence:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, 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. This also applies to labeling a person’s statement, not just labeling the person.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

OR is OR. Anything we say MUST be souced to an RS. If only one RS says it we attribute, if multiple RS do, I say we do not need to attribute. It does not matter how we word it, wp:v is clear. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
So you disagree with what this guideline currently says? It currently says this: “Value-laden labels…are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with Slatersteven. MOS:LABEL is a guideline but WP:V and WP:NPOV are policies. Loki (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that policies take precedence over guidelines, but they should also be read if possible in a way that harmonizes them. In other words, there must be a clear conflict before we ignore what a guideline says. What part of the policy *clearly* conflicts with what this guideline currently says? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No, I just do not agree it trumps policy. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
What sentence of policy, exactly, cannot be reconciled with this guideline? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like forum shopping and misrepresenting the discussion in the long talk page thread. please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not allowed to suggest improvement to this guideline? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • The section heading makes it seem like someone is arguing that we should describe someone as racist because they have said racist things. Is that actually at issue here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, I revised the heading. Better? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    Very much so. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    Don't think that was actually at issue in the original discussion; the removal was correct, and SPECIFICO was right to say that it was unsupported WP:OR. My comment below should be interpreted as addressing the general point, not participating in the forum shopping. DFlhb (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    I don’t see this as forum shopping at all. The Elaine Chao discussion has not been active since March 18, I only mentioned it here for full disclosure, and it only touched very briefly on the distinction between racist people versus racist statements. I’m concerned here about whether the guideline can be improved, and have no intention of revisiting the Elaine Chao matter. WP:FORUMSHOPPING says, “the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a POV issue. As Slatersteven says, WP:RS are unanimous, so it can't be a POV issue. It's an "encyclopedic language" issue. We can't state subjective things without attribution, because that's not an encyclopedic tone. Every reliable source says Trump is a populist and protectionist, but we still say: Trump's political positions have been described as, because saying it in wikivoice would break our encyclopedic tone. We say Albert Einstein is widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest and most influential physicists of all time, because even though sources are unanimous, it's still inherently a subjective judgment. We don't say that Hitler is evil in wikivoice, we attribute an elegant statement by Ian Kershaw that calls him the embodiment of modern political evil.

We're trying to write an encyclopedia based on non-encyclopedic sources. We can't base our tone on these sources, because then, we're no longer an encyclopedia. WP:NPOV is quite unequivocal that we should Avoid stating opinions as facts, Prefer nonjudgmental language, and that we shouldn't use these "words to watch" in wikivoice. So it's false to say that MOS:LABEL conflicts with WP:NPOV. If we still want to include the word "racist", we just need to quote someone using that word, rather than say it ourselves, just like in the Hitler article. And obviously, per NPOV, we wouldn't quote anyone arguing it isn't racist, when sources are unanimous. DFlhb (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with describing a statement as racist if there is academic consensus for it. We should never however imply that a subject is racist even if they have made racist comments, because that would be implicit synthesis and a violation of WP:LABEL. We could however report commentary that the comments show the person was racist, provided WP:WEIGHT is followed. TFD (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue here is when do we have to avoid wikivoice, and when is wikivoice acceptable. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I do think that scholarly consensus should be exempted from MOS:LABEL. But not news commentary, due to all the reasons mentioned here. DFlhb (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the distinction could be between secondary and tertiary sources? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I continue to feel like others that this guideline is frequently in conflict with NPOV. If no reliable source seriously contests that something is racist, I think a wikivoice statement is warranted, and that attribution is non-neutral, in addition to being clunky and potentially misleading. If RS do contest that a statement was racist, I'm all for attribution, and presentation of both views with due weight. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    This (and SPECIFICO's distinction between the person vs the statement) is also utterly reasonable. In that case, all we need to do is clarify that MOS:LABEL applies only to people and organizations, and not to their practices. I just have a hard time squaring "don't call sexual practices perversions" (paraphrasing MOS:LABEL) and "do call statements racist". One of those has to go. DFlhb (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    How often is it the case that even a majority of reliable sources call a sexual practice a "perversion", much less the overwhelming majority we'd need to give no weight at all to the view that it's not?
    It's definitely the case sometimes that reliable sources are basically unanimous that a statement is racist, sexist, or homophobic, or that a person is a neo-Nazi, cult leader, or terrorist. But I've never seen a case where even a large minority of reliable sources call a sexual practice a perversion. Loki (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
    Very true, though I was referring to the underlying principle (neither label applies to people themselves, but to what they do/say). DFlhb (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I w>like add that I think that there is a time factor involved here, in that we can only use non attributed language not only when supported by a majority of sources but also when said person has completely fallen out if the daily news cycle. Eg, it would be wrong to try to use unattributed labels on Obama's, Trump's or Biden's article as they are still.mewsmakers, while someone like Clinton. This gives the chance for academic sources to come out, and more retrospective sources to come out and back up the long term opinions about a person. Masem (t) 19:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

(Responding not just to the specific question, but to the more general issue of WTW and NPOV conflicting, raised above.) The conflict between this guideline and NPOV has been an issue for some time; we really need to clarify that not only pseudoscience (which has a unique carve-out here) but also other things must follow the NPOV policy, including § "Avoid stating facts as opinions". I've pointed out before that the only thing that currently allows the article on Matthias Koehl (longest leader of the American Nazi Party) to state he is a "neo-Nazi", rather than merely presenting it as an opinion that he "is considered a neo-Nazi by some sources we're attributing that opinion to in-text", is WP:IAR-ignoring MOS:WAW MOS:LABEL and following WP:NPOV. Likewise, IAR-ing MOS:WAW MOS:LABEL because it explicitly conflicts with and is trumped by NPOV is the only thing that allows the article on Mein Kampf to say it has "racist content".
We need to include some language from NPOV into this guideline, that factual assertions by many high-quality reliable sources which are not contested by other reliable sources should normally be stated in wikivoice. The question about whether statements can be described as "racist" is a one of evaluating the sources per NPOV; if there are copious high-quality academic sources about some collection of statements like Mein Kampf and they all describe the statements as racist, then we do so; if only a few news articles describe someone's recent statement as racist (and especially if other news articles dispute that), that's where NPOV allows this guideline's call to attribute the term. -sche (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

When you're referring to MOS:WAW do you mean MOS:LABEL? Loki (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, yes; sorry, that was a thinko... I was misremembering the acronym MOS:WTW. Thanks for catching that. -sche (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
FWIW it's not a problem with all of MOS:WTW. So for instance, MOS:WEASEL is a lot more circumspect, and goes into detail about when weasel-like phrasings can be appropriate. Loki (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that WP:BLP says this: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources.” That raises the same question about whether putting a contentious label on an utterance is basically the same as putting it on a person. There’s also a lot of info about inline citation at WP:Citing sources. Furthermore, WP:V says inline citation is required for “all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.” That seems to cover contentious labels on both people and on their statements. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
-sche, the best example in your favour would be NXIVM, where my (stricter) interpretation of MOS:LABEL would clearly harm the article. Maybe the best way to change MOS:LABEL would be to say that a scholarly consensus does not need attribution; or, maybe, that it only applies to BLPs and nothing else. DFlhb (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I’d support narrowing the pertinent language in this guideline so that it only applies to living or recently deceased persons, while for those people broadening it to cover “all contentious matter” (per WP:V), which would include labeling either a person or their statements as racist (etc). Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if narrowed to apply only to living people, the conflict with NPOV is still there: e.g. Rocky Suhayda (the American Nazi Party leader who followed Koehl) is living and a neo-Nazi, described as such in all RS and therefore also in his article, but only because editors recognize that WP:NPOV (core policy saying to present facts as facts and not as opinions) overrules MOS:LABEL (style guideline saying to present even agreed-upon facts as attributed opinions). The problem isn't specific to dead or living people, it's a general problem that this guideline, as written, pointedly says to violate explicit policy in certain cases, and only rejecting the guideline via IAR (and via minding NPOV's higher CONLEVEL) is letting the articles I've linked be as they are, which works, sure, but is obviously less ideal than tweaking the guideline to stop calling for policy violations. But this is a different enough issue that I'll start a new section on this page for it in a while, so this section doesn't get off its original statements-vs-people track! -sche (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I think Rocky Suhayda self-identifies as a Nazi. I would drop the inline citation attribution requirement in cases of self-ID. (BTW, there’s a difference between “inline citation” and “inline attribution” so I need to be more careful about that.). Also, User:-sche, the rule about in-text attribution can be followed without presenting facts as opinions. For example, saying that “Botha is unanimously described by reliable historians as having been a virulent ‘racist’”. Or “Botha believed white people to be superior compared to all other types of people”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There is of course an exception to WP:LABEL: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." But any editor wanting to make an exception should have a pretty good reason and it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. And I agree with WP:IAR in that if strict adherence to the terms of a policy or guideline defeat the purpose of them, then an exception should be made. TFD (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to harmonize WTW and NPOV

Separate from the proposal in the section above (and orthogonal / not mutually exclusive to it; AFAICT it would be possible to adopt either, neither, or both, as they serve different purposes), and based on the discussion here and other prior discussions linked there, I propose to expand this current wording:

  • Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, 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.

by adding some language (inspired by the current note about how WP:NPOV applies to pseudoscience) to the effect of:

  • [...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution] except where this would violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy that "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice".

This way, for example, our article on Rocky Suhayda (an article I've never edited and picked in the earlier discussion purely as an illustrative example) could more clearly continue to say he is "an American neo-Nazi and [...] chairman of a fringe group that split from the American Nazi Party", instead of having to be rewritten, according to the current text of MOS:LABEL, to say he is "chairman of a fringe group that split from the American Nazi Party, and according to Andrew Kaczynski and James Ridgeway, a neo-Nazi". -sche (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. If he self-identifies as a Nazi, then wouldn’t it already be okay for Wikipedia to say he’s a “self-described Nazi”? That’s attribution, so I don’t see the problem with this guideline as it’s already worded (or as it’s worded per the proposal in the preceding section). Notice that NPOV policy says “normally” not “always”. I’m concerned that the effect of this proposal would be to change the word “normally” in the policy to “always”. (The quoted part of the policy also says “uncontested and uncontroversial” which suggests that a label might be uncontested and yet still be controversial due to being contentious.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I take that to mean whether the application of the label is contentious, not whether it is about a contentious topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support In the case that it is uncontested and uncontroversial yes this is clear situation where WTW is completely out of touch with NPOV. I've noticed this before. Cases where it is contested and/or controversial I'm not sure of the answer to. "Terrorist" is a great example as of course "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and given our heavy bias toward prevailing US and UK viewpoints which we should be aware of. For example Provisional Irish Republican Army handles this correctly, saying it was a paramilitary organization (uncontested neutral fact) but that it was designated a terrorist organization (both contested and controversial). One question I have is whether it would be enough that the topic of an article or their/its supporters contest the label, or if any reliable source does, and reliable for what purpose?
—DIYeditor (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Sounds good except I'd replace "violate" with "conflict with". On DIYeditor's point, there should be no higher bar for "contesting" than just an editor contesting. A higher bar would make it wide open for wililawyer POV warriors to put in contested value laden words. I can expand on this if desired. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose — It's common sense that the leader of the Nazi Party is a Nazi; but extreme cases make bad policy, and this change would have unintended consequences in our BLPs. Many "uncontested" labels are too emotive to use in wikivoice, like "radical", "terrorist", "convicted felon" and meaningless words like "controversial". As an encyclopedia, we should be neutral and precise: national authorities classified it as a terrorist act, he was convicted of a felony, etc. Calling a person controversial is vague; instead, we should say what the person did. The "whitewashing" concerns are overblown: there's no difference between calling someone racist in Wikivoice, versus attributing it and still talking at length about the racist things they did. But as a reader, I wouldn't take an encyclopaedia seriously if it called Trump racist in its own voice (trust me, the sourcing is there). The fact that it's [I won't say "true", that'd be BLPvio] is besides the point: venerable professional encyclopediae wouldn't write like that. Weakening MOS:LABEL would enable us to be lazier and more careless, even in BLPs (and would make quite a few WP:CTOPS more radioactive, since people will just argue over whether it's uncontested). Even my earlier Einstein example would be made far less credible, tone-wise, if we stopped attributing one of the greatest and most influential physicists of all time; but try looking for a source to contest that! DFlhb (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per DFlhb's excellent explanation to which I can't find anything to add. Crossroads -talk- 14:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, also per DFlhb's concerns. I'm not sure I have anything else to add given DFlhb's articulation of the issues. I think we really should be making the use of contentious labels less frequent, not more frequent with the idea being this is an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be an exercise in persuasive writing. The more we describe and the less we tell the better. Springee (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support idea but not wording: I've long supported some sort of change along these lines but I don't think the provided wording really gets at the distinction here.
The basic problem with the current wording of MOS:LABEL is that while it only provides for two levels (don't use if it's contested, attribute if not), in actual use there are three levels (don't use if the sourcing is weak, attribute if the sourcing is strong but not overwhelming, do not attribute if sourcing is overwhelming). Hence we describe Richard B. Spencer as a "neo-Nazi", Timothy McVeigh as a "terrorist", and Jim Jones as the leader of a "cult". There are two justifications for this policy-wise: the stronger one is that WP:NPOV and WP:V demand it, and the weaker one is that MOS:WTW says at the top that it should not be applied rigidly.
That all being said, while I agree that this exception exists for any label and not just "pseudoscience", I don't think that saying yes but no but yes is a good way to phrase it. I would instead just describe it more or less the way I listed the levels before: ...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. If the sourcing is not so overwhelming that the label ceases to be "contentious", in-text attribution should still be used.
Furthermore, I don't take DFlhb's argument very seriously because venerable professional encyclopedias do write like that. Britannica describes Jim Jones as a "cult leader" much more directly than we do and Timothy McVeigh as a "terrorist". (They don't appear to have an article on Richard Spencer.) To use the example he gave, while they don't call Donald Trump "a racist" they do say that he regularly made inflammatory remarks, including racist and sexist slurs and insults, which is far more direct than we ever get. Loki (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose:The proposed wording would encourage labelling. A label is vague and uninformative. It is better to say what the subject has actually said/done, so that readers will know the facts and can make their own assessment of how to judge the subject. The proposed wording would also encourage unthinking bias – once someone has been labelled, detailed description of their position may seem superfluous. And a practical reason is that when a label is applied, this is likely to arouse disagreement amongst editors who might otherwise be able to agree on the facts of the subject’s views. I also agree with DHlfb’s comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edit to this guideline

In view of discussion above, part of the guideline can be improved, IMO. Here’s the existing language:


There is often a better solution than in-text attribution: rephrasing to avoid the contentious label, without changing the meaning. Moreover, the examples could be easily broadened a bit, which would be helpful instead of the current examples being considered as an exclusive list. So I’d edit the passage quoted above so it reads like this:


Although I don’t have to, I am happy to promise not to cite this revised language (assuming it’s adopted) anywhere at Wikipedia for one year from now, and then only at articles I’ve never edited before now. The proposed language is longer than what we have now, but the issue arises frequently enough at Wikipedia to use some additional words that hopefully supply more and better guidance. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If the label was not widely used by reliable sources, but is value-laden, where did it even come from? I think people know they can't just toss their opinions into articles. Can you give an example of where your scenario would apply? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
There could be a situation where only one or two reliable sources use the value-laden label, and no other reliable sources say anything about it. Anyway, I have tweaked the proposal above, as shown, for clarity. If many reliable sources use the value-laden label, then in-text attribution is not necessary if the label is removed by rephrasing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Again seems like a situation where WP:NPOV needs to be drawn upon as -sche suggests below. 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 not phrased as well as it could be, I would probably use a term like "value judgements" instead of "opinions" because people have opinions on whether facts are factual...)
If there is any reason to include a statement about something or someone, isn't it already covered by the idea that it should be neutrally phrased, whether it is a majority or minority opinion? Minority opinions obviously can't be expressed in the voice of Wikipedia. I don't see when your wording would actually apply. An example would be helpful.
These questions come up often on the WP:NPOV and WP:BLP noticeboards (which I am not too active in); you will probably want or need to do an RFC (advertised in on those noticeboards and anywhere else relevant) to get wider input before trying to implement a change in this section. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Doubtless I would be criticized for forum shopping. This seems like a good place to resolve it. Just like in the next section. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Survey

The proposed language has already been contrasted with the current language above in this talk page section. The proposed language is this: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, calling an individual or utterance racist, sexist, phobic, terroristic, woke, or freedom-loving, or calling a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion. These and other value-laden labels are best avoided, for example by rephrasing in a way that maintains the basic non-contentious meaning or summarizes underlying facts, unless the label is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject in which case another alternative is to use the label with in-text attribution.

  • Support (as proposer). This issue arises frequently enough, and is serious enough, to merit the proposed modest expansion of the guideline. There is often a better solution than in-text attribution: rephrasing to avoid the contentious label altogether, but without changing the meaning. Moreover, the examples already given in this guideline could be broadened a bit, adding to the current examples which are presently sometimes erroneously considered as an exclusive list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support There are a number of labels that come up frequently such as far-left (and the converse) as well as anti-trans (that redirects to transphobia) where there is dispute with regard to whether it's a contentious label because of the exclusive language set forth in this policy as stated. In an effort to not try and keep up an exhaustive list of contentious labels I believe this is a sane policy update that makes it fairly straightforward as to what could fall into this category given the living nature of the English language. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's unclear to me why this is an improvement. The primary change appears to be to add "utterance", and in that regard I'm neutral, but it also makes the wording a bit confusing and adds some odd examples like "freedom-loving". When has that ever come up in an article? It's such a meaningless term that I would be surprised if there ever been consensus among reliable sources to call anything "freedom-loving". Going to add to the pile of discussions on this momentarily with what I think the most common dispute is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Rhododendrites, the existing language uses the term “freedom fighter” and I merely changed it from a noun to an adjective so it would fit with a series of adjectives. Just like changing “terrorist” to “terroristic”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
"Freedom fighter" is kind of a classic counterpart to "terrorist" in discourse about asymmetrical conflict. "Freedom-loving" just kind of sounds like an empty campaign stump platitude IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Right, it’s an empty platitude so best avoided. It’s hard to see why you’re opposing on that basis. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not opposing just because of "freedom-loving", but to clarify, the distinction of freedom fighter vs. terrorism is a useful example to show that there are two ways of looking at the same subject. Freedom loving doesn't add anything. It's a side point. In general, I don't think this clarifies much. I'd defer at this point to what I wrote at the bottom (that maybe we should have less, not more language here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Using labels like “racist” is a big issue and so a few more words here seem prudent. Inserting “other value-laden labels” makes more clear we’re not just talking about the ones listed. Inserting “utterance” plugs a loophole. Etc etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

When are the terms we call "value-laden" not "value-laden"

With apologies for starting yet another section on this subject, it seems to me that one element of the conflict between NPOV and WTW regarding labels like "racist" is when the term is more straightforwardly descriptive rather than a judgment. For example, if someone says "I believe that [X race] is biologically and culturally inferior", is it really value-laden to describe that as racist? That's just ... applying the definition of racism. When it's obvious like that is when we get a consensus among reliable sources that some statement is "racist", and when that consensus is strong enough, it's highly controversial on Wikipedia whether to attribute it, since WTW would seem to say racism=automatic attribution while basic NPOV/WEIGHT/FRINGE would say it wouldn't be neutral to act as though there's another side. I'm not sure how to address this, but I don't the proposals above to tweak existing language quite covers it. Maybe the answer is to remove some of the language here and add a pointer to follow NPOV. This is a style guideline, after all, and should never conflict with content policy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Overall the issue right now is a combination of several factors:
  • We have a world environment that there is clear open hostility through the culture war, which creates outrage and similar feelings. That's a straight forward systematic bias that WP can't fix.
  • But within WP, a fair share of editors seem to take this outrage to make sure our articles reflect the negativity and other aspects on BLP and other topics, particularly when this is reflected in the RS (Which we have to recognize have a liberal-leaning average bias)
  • As a whole, WPians have lost the thread of having to write long-term encyclopedia articles and instead focusing on anything short term, against the spirit of NOTNEWS and RECENTISM. This is a problem beyond just labels or the like (too many articles read like PROSELINE, rather than summarizing with a focused narrative).
That leads to the problem that editors actively seek out labels and other terms from RSes to use in articles and want to try to push that they should be included without attribution due to DUE or lack of opposition and FRINGE. We really should be waiting until the topic in question has well fallen out of the news and then judge whether labels are used without attribution in sources far distance from any critical events. Until that happens, labels should always be treated with attribution and treated as subjective factors when considering how to write them. We should not be trying to determine when labels, unstated in sources, are appropriate (like the racism example you give), as that falls into the OR category.
My idea, which I've been thinking about for a long time, starts with adjusting UNDUE to make sure the time factor is included - that is, when considering what is due and undue, we should be favoring sources far distance in time and separated from the events in question and dismissing the sources that are more closer to the event. In that way, we can apply labels without too much concern to someone like David Duke, while people still actively in the news, like Trump or Greene, we should still be tip-toeing on any use of labels without attributions. Masem (t) 17:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think Trump is a bad example here, as according to reliable sources individuals have been describing Trump as a racist for at least the last twenty thirty years. He may even have been described as such for fifty years, but sources that old are rarely digitised in a manner that's easily and quickly searchable for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Someone that has been around for decades and still active, like Trump, would be the type that we can look at different periods of their life or career to see how the label applies. Trump as a businessman definitely has issues with racism that are likely well documented in sourcing today. There's still things to be careful about when it comes to modern aspects related to Trump, though. Masem (t) 22:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
against the spirit of NOTNEWS and RECENTISM Much of this highlights something that I agree is a problem, but disagree as to whether it's fixable. Wikipedia is now where people go to learn about current events and developing stories, for better or worse. A disproportionate amount of interest and activity is devoted to new developments rather than summarizing past events, and there isn't going to consensus for any editorial waiting period, realistically. Personally, I'd like to see a waiting period for a wide variety of subjects/decisions, like articles on crimes and other events where basic facts aren't yet known (and initial misinformation can be damaging), but I don't see that happening either. We need policies and guidelines that deal with the way things are. that editors actively seek out labels - This is resolved by requiring a consensus among reliable sources, not just "I found a source that uses the term". Yes, that's fraught, but every instance when these labels could be used is going to be fraught and messy. treated as subjective factors My point in this section is: where is the line between objective description and subjective "labels" that require attribution? Again, this is a style guideline, not BLP or NPOV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
We can cover current events, that's not an issue, but what is the issue is that we're writing to 24/7 newspaper-level of coverage, and not to how we would have written on the same topic using the same array of sources, just ten years later. I appreciate that some of this 24/7-news style writing is stuff that can be re-edited later to a more concise, high-level summary, but if we are going to allow for the short-term use of 24/7-style coverage, that needs to written to focus on facts and not bursts of criticism, complaints, name- and label-calling, and similar subjective coverage. For example, many of our articles on those considered to the far right read as laundry lists of every "bad" thing they have done as documented by the daily news sources, because of this attitude of editors. Instead, we should wait like days or a week after a burst of this type of coverage and see if it really alters how we would write about that person. And that's just when covering one small event and trying to make a big deal out of it. Labels are longer-lasting, and should only be brought about only when a sufficient long period of time has passed to know how it works in context. But I really think we're losing the art of writing for the ten-year view and the importance of NOTNEWS/RECENTISM because of this strong desire to write on controversial topics when there's RSes to back that up. Masem (t) 22:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The original post in this section includes: For example, if someone says "I believe that [X race] is biologically and culturally inferior", is it really value-laden to describe that as racist? That's just ... applying the definition of racism. This makes it sound as if it is always completely clear what racism is, and therefore, that it is always clear who is a racist. But it is rare that anyone will say something so unequivocal, and many would be regarded as racist who do not say something that clear. In fact, it is not even generally agreed what racism is – see [3]. So it is best to avoid the use of value-laden labels in wikivoice, not just because they are value-laden and subjective, but also because they are vague. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Concluded

Question about WP:SAID: I use a lot of concluded in my writings, like Historian Foo concluded that event Bar happened in 1234. Is this a recommended synonym of said, or more a word to avoid like showed or speculated or pointed out? In my experience, concluded is a neutral term, because conclusions can be right or wrong, and they are confirmed to be right or shown to be wrong all the time. On the other hand, pointed out and showed imply the conclusion of historian Foo about Bar is correct, while speculated suggests historian Foo concludes lots of things about Bar without really caring about the importance of evidence, and so we shouldn't take historian Foo's conclusions about Bar too seriously. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that concluded is okay. It would be particularly appropriate when you are reporting something that was logically deduced (as opposed to, e.g., "Historian Foo concluded that the US Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, because that's the date given on the original document"). We probably all have our own quirks (I agree with you about pointed out sometimes being problematic, and I dislike stated for the same reason, but other editors approve of stated), but concluded seems reasonable to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Labels, again - request revisions for clarification?

Over on the article for Elizabeth Holmes we recently had an RfC "Fraudster" on the issue of whether it was appropriate to use the label "fraudster" applied to Holmes in the article (as well as her associate Sunny Balwani). I posted an initial Talk issue, with skepticism as to the use of the word, but initially not sure. As the talk evolved, I became more certain, and eventually we had the RfC, with overwhelming support for avoiding the term. I had looked into the guidance on the issue on this page, but found it ambiguous - for the arguments back and forth we were having, this guidance could be read in different ways. The issue is as broad and pervasive as it is unclear...e.g., there is List of fraudsters, which given the results of our RfC, is an inappropriate name for the list (it calls everyone on the list a "fraudster", irrespective; an equivalent name might be "Rogues gallery"). In the Holmes case there were "sources" that used the label, to be sure, but it seemed to me that was part of the national bandwagon of anger at Holmes (with, with all due respect, elements of the usual insidious misogyny). The main news reporting articles did not use the label. Anyways, it seems to me that there should be a quite high bar on the use of such labels - someone with an extensive history of fraud/crime/"whatever", and perhaps even enough time passing to have a historical perspective. Also at issue here is the article is a biography of a living person, an important factor. I'll post a similar inquiry on the guidance for BLP. Thanks, Bdushaw (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest having one discussion. You've got a reply at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Labels again - request for clarification/clearer guidance, so perhaps any interested people will comment over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Profanities section copyedit

In this section, I think the sentence "the inclusion of material that might offend is part of its purpose as an encyclopedia" may imply that the inclusion of offensive content is WP's purpose or necessary, which I don't believe is the intended meaning here; it should convey that WP does not shy away from including content that may be offensive. Is there any disagreement to this? I propose using "compatible with", "suitable", "accordant with", for instance: "the inclusion of material that might offend is compatible with its purpose as an encyclopedia". Would more closely reflect what WP:UNCENSORED says. I'd also suggest adding "Such material should be treated in an encyclopedic manner", as advised by WP:OM. Lapadite (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed change. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok. It's been five days and no opposition so I've made the edit. Lapadite (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sex worker vs prostitute

These terms are often interchanged within reliable sources and even between different articles by the same publisher. When there's a disagreement over wording like these, do we favor one version over the other as a general guideline? While some find "prostitutes" offensive to their senses, it is a commonly used descriptive term and "sex worker" just seems to be euphemistic. I searched past discussions and it didn't seem conclusive, so I'm hoping to get some perspectives on this. Graywalls (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If we know the person being described has/had a preference for one or the other then I see no reason not to use that. If there is a clear preference among reliable sources to describe a specific person that doesn't conflict with a known self-identification then definitely use that. There is no consensus that I am aware of that one term is always preferable to the other in general (although some editors have strong feelings), nor that there needs to be consistency between articles. If sources and editors are both divided and the subject's self-description is not known, then neither option is more right than the other and getting additional opinions to try and break a deadlock is the only way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The terms are not strictly synonymous, so my main concern would be people switching to "prostitute" where it's incorrect or unclear in the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I also don't think "sex worker" is euphemistic. It's pretty plain language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes and no - the term "sex worker" is used both as a plain description and as a euphemism depending on context. For some people "prostitute" carries connotations that "sex worker" does not. In some places, calling a person a "prostitute" is (implicitly) accusing them of a specific crime with all the implications for libel, etc. that carries, whereas calling them a "sex worker" does not do that - even if all parties know that the subject does indeed engage in prostitution. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't describe careful use of language to avoid implying criminal activity as euphemistic. That said, I wouldn't argue that "sex worker" is in all imaginable cases non-euphemistic, just generally so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with your latter point - I would say that euphemistic and non-euphemistic uses of "sex worker" are sufficiently close to equally common that minor differences in sampling could tip the balance either way Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Prostitute is a more specific term. Sex worker covers a much broader array of professions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Prostitutes are a subset of sex workers, which also include porn film actors, strippers, and cam models. A prostitute saying "Don't call me a prostitute, I prefer 'sex worker'" is like an Italian saying "Don't call me Italian, I'm European". It's a non-sequitur. You aren't one or the other, you're both. Largoplazo (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
You can be both, but the nationality analogy isn't great because while the Italian is not also French, the prostitute might also be a stripper, or they might actually be an escort. A better analogy would be a painter and sculptor saying "don't call me a painter, I'm an artist" - they are both a painter and an artist, but the former is an incomplete description of them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I would argue this falls into the same "committed suicide" / "died by suicide" language area, in which we should not have a preference or deference against either one as long as we reflect the term used in the reliable sources for the specific topic, so that it is a local page-by-page determination. Masem (t) 00:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Accident" revisited

This morning (North American Eastern Time), edits by Dreameditsbrooklyn to a pair of articles on my watchlist, Valhalla train crash and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, changing the word "accident" to "crash" or "incident" en masse, came to my attention. After a brief bit of BRD with him, they agreed that I bring the issue up on the MOS talk pages, and so I am obliging.

Dream justifies these edits on a 2016 change to the AP Stylebook discouraging the use of "accident" in favor of other terms as "accident" implies an exoneration that may not have come yet, and may not at all. While we don't blindly follow AP on everything, as I explained to him, I do think their logic behind this is not incompatible with NPOV and OR, the same logic by which we have begun to follow their lead in referring to homicides as "murders", at least in the US, only when there has been a conviction (the stubborn case of Murder of Seth Rich being an unfortunate exception).

I found this eight-year-old discussion here in which most participants seem to be open to the idea of making this change (save the very last editor). How do people feel about this now? Should we add a subsection on "accident", at least in the context of transportation disasters, indicating a strong preference for "crash", "collision", "derailment", "incident" or whatever may be more specific in the case? Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that we should generally prefer words other than "accident" unless that is a commonly (perhaps most commonly) used term in reliable sources. However I would strongly discourage any changes en-masse in favour of a consideration of the sources of individual incidents - it's very clear that e.g. Ufton Nervet rail crash was not an accident but Polmont rail accident and Selby rail crash have much stronger claims to the term. Certainly the various list articles (e.g. List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom) should not be moved without a formal discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, we shouldn't be using "accident" unless reliable independent sources agree that it was in fact accidental. But mass-scale substitutions of any kind are often WP:MEATBOT behavior that can end up being disruptive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for opening this discussion.
There is almost always a better, more accurate word that can replace many instances of "accident" across the wiki. Any instances of "accident" which I've replaced were done carefully, with the rare exception where I accidentally missed the plural form of the noun. In those cases, I misplaced a keystroke (and nobody died).
But those instances were not a "crash", "collision", "derailment", "incident", or in very rare cases, "disaster" -- words that almost always benefit the reader in their specificity and serve as a reminder that a series of events -- or systematic failures -- led up to the loss of life or property.
Language evolves and there will be contention around certain words, but in this case I have yet to hear a solid argument that "accident" is the superior word to use in almost any of the referenced articles. There's also the tiny but not non-existent benefit in reducing the character count across many of the articles where I've made such edits.
While I haven't collected a list of internal style guides published by outlets listed in WP:SOURCES, I can say that the use of the word "accident" has fallen badly out of favor, and for good reason. I remain curious to hear a strong argument for the use of the word "accident", particularly in cases where there has been a major loss of life. In nearly every article where I've replaced the word, there is a detailed section covering the multiple human and systemic failures that led up to the "collision", "derailment", "explosion", and more.
It's just better writing! Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Simply put we follow the sources, if they consistently use "accident" then so should we. Wikipedia does not lead on language change (see also WP:RGW) but follows - in cases where there are no BLP or similar considerations (as is the case for the majority of articles on transport incidents) we should be at or slightly behind the crest of any change. Your comment does not give me the impression you understand this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Why is accident a better word than crash? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Also, as @Daniel Case pointed out, it's been seven years since the AP stylebook discouraged the use of the word "accident". We're well behind the crest in this case. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Finally (and sorry for the multiple replies) I invite you to edit Gilgo Beach serial killings and replace "sex worker" with "prostitute" and see what kind of reception you get from other editors. Many sources still call the women who were killed by the latter terminology. You've also contradicted yourself -- you argue that Selby rail crash had a "much stronger claim" to the term "accident", but the strongest primary sources for the article explicitly use the word "crash". Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm now more convinced you don't understand what others are saying to you. Firstly "Sex worker" vs "prostitute" is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion - it involve a completely different set of words, with different issues around each, in a completely different topic area, frequently has BLP implications and unfavoured term ("prostitute") is more specific than the favoured alternative ("sex worker"; "accident" is less specific than "crash", "derailment", etc)
Secondly, if you read my comments you'll see I don't think that "accident" is a better word than "crash", I just think we need to proceed more slowly and more carefully than you have been doing and look at the sources for each incident and make an individual determination on the best term to use when considering the sources and the individual circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It sounds like you're saying "be careful." Is that a fair assessment? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
"Be careful" is part of what I'm saying, but I'm also explaining why being careful is important and what being careful means in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Since you're a far more experienced contributor than I, can you show me an example of where I replaced an instance of the word "accident" with another word where I was careless? I do not mean to be reckless and I do read the primary sources before making edits. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's not what you meant, but here you changed the word when it was in a filename, redlinking the image. Fortunately it was reverted quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Now that was an accident. I do regret the error and didn't intend to mess with a filename! Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: I'm going to exclude air crashes from this discussion, since a) we generally refer to them as crashes because there's really no other way to describe them (except in cases like, famously, Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 and others where the aircraft has never been found), and b) as Aviation accidents and incidents explains right in the intro that terminology is formally established within the industry. Daniel Case (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It's an interesting discussion and I am happy to listen to other editors. I did not mean to be reckless with my edits. I think @Buistr can attest to the fact that I am receptive to feedback and hope to collaborate rather than push through my edits without listening. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NEO?

I need a sanity check on my understanding of how MOS:NEO is supposed to work. Sagan standard was created in 2016, and brought to AfD in 2017. There were two keep !votes: one thought the page could remain as a wikipedia essay, and the other thought it needed a different title. Yet, this was closed as NC (default to keep), despite the fact that nobody actually wanted to keep the title. Fast forward to now and Sagan standard is up for a FA review. As far as I can tell, there were zero uses of the phrase "Sagan standard" in the literature prior to 2016, but mentions started popping up after our article went live (see my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sagan standard/archive1).

So where does that leave us? Is it OK that we invented a term, people started using it, and now we're using those mentions as WP:RS on which to build an argument that the term meets WP:N? RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Except that the term clearly existed prior to our article. Here's the use of it in direct relation to the quote it refers to. Another from 2014. Oh, and here's an article from Space.com from 2010. So I'm not sure your claim of citogenesis works out. SilverserenC 22:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
And MOS:NEO doesn't have anything to do with whether a subject (whatever its name might be, new or otherwise) can have an article here; that's controlled by WP:NOTABILITY. NEO is about not writing sentences peppered with neologisms that our readers mostly won't recognize. And most of what the OP is talking about is WP:CIRCULAR territory, which has nothing really to do with NEO or NOTABILITY. (In answer to the central question, yes a term that WP invented – which isn't what's going on here – that the potential to "escape into the wild" and become independently notable. I would imagine that it has already happened with regard to some wiki-community terminology, though I'm not inclined to trawl through categories of Internet jargon to find an example.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I would imagine that it has already happened with regard to some wiki-community terminology: Citation needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
And MOS:NEO doesn't have anything to do with...: but WP:NEO does.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, that might explain why this was posted here. Someone's mixing up their shortcuts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Silver seren: I've added this info to the article to avoid going round this loop again in future. PamD 07:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed clarification on scare quotes by User:Herostratus

Herostratus proposed the following:

Existing passage

Misused punctuation can also have similar effects. Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation,[a] may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully.

Proposed section

Short snippets of actual quotations should be avoided if subject to interpretation as scare quotes. Instead be precise; if our source has Jones saying "The panzer had a bunch of 7.6mm machine guns, which were actually very powerful" but the characterization as "powerful" is debatable or disputed or ought to be emphasized as being opinion:

  • Avoid: The tank mounted several "very powerful" 7.6mm machine guns
  • OK: The tank mounted several 7.6mm machine guns, which Jones described as very powerful.
  • OK: Jones said "The panzer had a bunch of 7.6mm machine guns, which were actually very powerful"

If nothing in a statement is debatable, there's usually no need to use quotation marks to mark off our paraphrasing ("panzer had a bunch" -> tank had several) from verbatim quoting ("very powerful"), although sometimes this is called for. But if subject to interpretation as scare quotes, avoid:

  • Avoid: The tank mounted several "very powerful" 7.6mm machine guns
  • OK: The tank mounted several very powerful 7.6mm machine guns

Concerns

  1. Minor, but Panzer is capitalized AFAIK. MOS should not have MOS mistakes.
  2. Minor, MOS problem, Jones said "The panzer "the" should not be capitalized, also appears to be a complete sentence with no full stop. Also should probably be "Jones said that" rather than "Jones said". Not sure if MOS calls for a comma in that situation.
  3. Minor, But if subject really should not start a sentence with "But".
  4. The entire proposed section already seems to be covered by the prior paragraph that already exists.
  5. Still doesn't address the fact that neologisms and peculiar or specific terminology may actually properly get "scare quotes" as even occurs in the MOS for example when it discusses "connecting term" in the section "Scientific names".

There may be some other issues but let's start there. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Some sources may use quotation marks to highlight that a word is special for some reason (names of works, words as words, words in other languages, etc). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting on how to deal with those cases when writing Wikipedia articles

WP:SCAREQUOTES

Oof, I added a whole bunch of words to the "Emphasis" section. I don't believe in major changes/additions to rules without consensus, but I did it. It got rolled back, which I'm sure is best, but maybe something can be salvage, I don't know.

The problem I saw was that WP:SCAREQUOTES points to this section, but there's nothing about scare quotes. There is a pointer to scare quotes, but in a sentence saying like "He was the only competent(?) player" where the (?) is not part of a quote should be treated like scare quotes. And scare quotes does cover the subject, but it is long and (being an article) not necessarily what we want to say.

In particular, it mostly talks about quotes added by the writer rather than actual quote snippets: eg when the writere has "She was a 'beautiful' girl" when "beautiful" is not part of a quote.

But that's not the usual problem in my experience (for one thing that sort of thing usually gets rolled back right away if caught). The usual problem is like this passage I just ran across:

Barry Tatelman left the company in December 2006, to "pursue other interests" including...

The editor's trying to do the right thing. I'm sure that "pursue other interests" is taken verbatim from the source, and "Tatelman left the company in December 2006" might be a paraphrase of an awkward passage (or not; doesn't matter). The editor was trying to be careful to hew to the facts; there's no intent to imply anything here, I'm confident. But I don't have to tell you what's wrong with that sentence.

So here is what I added:

Short snippets of actual quotations should be avoided if subject to interpretation as scare quotes. Instead be precise; if our source has Jones saying "The panzer had a bunch of 7.6mm machine guns, which were actually very powerful" but the characterization as "powerful" is debatable or disputed or ought to be emphasized as being opinion:

  • Avoid: The tank mounted several "very powerful" 7.6mm machine guns
  • OK: The tank mounted several 7.6mm machine guns, which Jones described as very powerful.
  • OK: Jones said "The panzer had a bunch of 7.6mm machine guns, which were actually very powerful"

If nothing in a statement is debatable, there's usually no need to use quotation marks to mark off our paraphrasing ("panzer had a bunch" -> tank mounted several) from verbatim quoting ("very powerful"), although sometimes this is called for. But if subject to interpretation as scare quotes, avoid:

  • Avoid: The tank mounted several "very powerful" 7.6mm machine guns
  • OK: The tank mounted several very powerful 7.6mm machine guns

IDK. Even if it belongs, it's probably too verbose (that's me all over). Maybe it should be n WP:QUOTES. Or nowhere. Or melded with the passage about question marks. Or something. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I posted a section above just before yours here. I'll repeat my concerns:
  1. Minor, but Panzer is capitalized AFAIK. MOS should not have MOS mistakes.
  2. Minor, MOS problem, Jones said "The panzer "the" should not be capitalized, also appears to be a complete sentence with no full stop. Also should probably be "Jones said that" rather than "Jones said". Not sure if MOS calls for a comma in that situation.
  3. Minor, But if subject really should not start a sentence with "But".
  4. The entire proposed section already seems to be covered by the prior paragraph that already exists.
  5. Still doesn't address the fact that neologisms and peculiar or specific terminology may actually properly get "scare quotes" as even occurs in the MOS for example when it discusses "connecting term" in the section "Scientific names".
There may be some other issues but let's start there. Also, this is a live working document, changes to it should be fully fleshed out and polished. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
There's something here: the MoS says Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", but the problem is that they often look like scare quotes even when they are marking an actual quotation. However, this problem is already covered by MOS:QUOTEPOV, which covers everything in the proposal. Perhaps a link to that could be added? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Your point 2 is self-contradictory. If it's a complete quoted sentence, then it does begin with a capital letter, and should more properly written Jones said [that]: "The Panzer ... powerful." But anyway .... :-)
There is something here that is probably worth teasing out into more concise guideline language, perhaps a clarification and/or single set of examples added to "the prior paragraph that already exists".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: According to MOS:CONFORM and its examples I think it should be either Jones said: "The Panzer ... powerful." or Jones said that "the Panzer ... powerful".
MOS:QUOTEPOV already provides some examples of when quotes might express proper or improper doubt. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
On the first point (the off-topic one :-), if the original material is full sentence, then the second idea is not an option, because it's substantively changing the content of the quotation, which defeats the entire purpose of MOS:LQ, which is precise quotation without reader-confusing alterations to the presence or absence of original puctuation and capitalization. (In regard to that, if you quote something from the 19th century that uses a lot of Capitalization of Words just because they are Nouns, this should be preserved as-is in the quoted material.) It's very simple: quote a full sentence and don't mess with it, or quote a sentence fragment and don't mess with it. The only reason to ever mess with quoted material is to non-substantively normalize something in it (fix a hyphen that should be a dash, switch to straight quotes, removed redundant or weird spacing, change ALL-CAPS to some other form of emphasis, replace archaic glphys like yogh. But changing the capitalization is substantive, and in this case strongly but wrongly implies to the reader that the quotation is a partial fragment and that anterior material is missing from it. Logical quotation is not hard, at all, in any way. People need to stop over-thinking it and looking for reasons to mess with the quoted material. Aside from the cases just outlined, there is no reason to mess with the quoted material. If you want to mess with the content, then do an attributed pharaphrase.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Really off topic but I think what you are saying is contrary to the examples in MOS:CONFORM (which may need to be adjusted if they are wrong):
LaVesque's report stated: "The equipment was selected for its low price. This is the primary reason for criticism of the program."
LaVesque's report said that "the equipment was selected for its low price".
That's exactly what I did in my own example. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It's because someone without consensus added a blatant WP:POLICYFORK to MOS:CONFORM, that conflicts with MOS:LQ. I've marked it disputed and taken it to MoS's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Examples in the contentious labels section

I noticed that the examples in the value-laden labels section are predominately negative but the consensus on this apply to all value-laden labels whether negative or positive so we may be misleading inexperienced editors in what the expectation actually is here. Perhaps we should add "hero" to "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter," and maybe a positive value-laden label for an organization as well? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"Philanthropist" and "savant" i think would be such examples. Eg, just because you give money to a good cause doesn't make you a philanthropist. Masem (t) 20:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Those labels would apply in the "puffery" section, would they not? Because we have a section covering peacock terms, it's reasonable that other contentious labels be negative. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Puffery can be taken as a (positive) value-laden label as well. There's a lot of overlap on these sections depending on context. Masem (t) 12:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the two sections should be merged, in the text the primary distinction appears to be " loaded language" vs "Value-laden labels" but both links actually go to Loaded language... The Puffery section even says "Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much. " making the contentious labels section seemingly redundant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd still group under Contentious, as while most would take "contentious" to imply a negative term, it applies to puffers terms too, whereas puffers is nearly always positive terms. Masem (t) 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Both statements about your products and statements about your competitors products are covered under puffery. Puffery often involves negative exaggeration in the service of furthering the positive exaggeration... Such as "Introducing NoWorm, the world's most amazing 100% genuine certified worm free apple brand! Don't ever buy from one of those low-class 0% non-genuine certified worm free apple brands again!" I will however concede that we spend a lot more time dealing with people trying to insert the positive parts of puffery than the negative ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Dispute about use of "terrorism" in certain articles

We should be able to use words since they have meaning, for example, a Neo-Nazi group that designates itself as a Neo-Nazi group should be called that. Same with terrorist organizations, etc. Not calling hate groups by what they are gives them a place to hide and provides with plausible deniability. Mark28482 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no problem to fix here. We use "neo-Nazi" if the label is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". If the group describes itself as "neo-Nazi", there would be no problem whatsoever with Wikipedia calling it a "self-described neo-Nazi[1] organization".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Are there groups that describe themselves as "terrorist organization" or "hate group"? Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Seems unlikely, but "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" has that covered. Self-use of the terms isn't a requirement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
for example, the attacks on israel this past weekend against civilians at the music festival for peace, was a terrorist attack by every definition of the word, but terrorist apologists and sympathizers are actively censoring the use of the word to lessen the impact of the atrocities that have happened and using this page an excuse/justification for that. Mark28482 (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
You should make up your mind what you're asking for here. You began this section asking to be permitted to describe a group using their own description of themselves. You've now gone off in a different direction, with no interest at all in what the perpetrators of violence call themselves, instead appealing to "every definition of the word". Which is it? Either? Both? Or neither? (I don't see how the attacks on Israel are terrorism. It's like calling what Russia is doing in Ukraine and what Azerbaijan is doing in Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh "terrorism". It's war.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
you dont see how attacking teenagers and young adults at a music festival and massacring them with over 260 brutally raped, burned, disfigured, beaten and murdered is an act of terrorism? That was not a legitimate military target, it was literally people attending a music festival for peace. How delusional and sick are you in the head?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re%27im_music_festival_massacre Mark28482 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
You haven't really made a point. If reliable sources show consensus for using a particular term, then that's also what we use. We don't inject our own personal views into it, valid as they may seem. And what does this have to do with your initial question, which was about what these groups call themselves? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
In looking objectively at this issue, there are reliable sources citing to these acts as terrorist acts. See Woman abducted by terrorists recounts harrowing experience | CNN. Also, by definition, terrorism is defined as "the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective." See Terrorism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Given this definition, and the reported accounts from reliable sources, the use of the term of terrorism to describe the taking of hostages for political purposes does not seem exaggerate the use of this term and I would support its use in the article. Mark28482 (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if we accept that is so, that is original research (see WP:OR) on your part. Stylistically, we adhere to the notion that labels must be "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". In this instance, yes you have named some reliable sources, so you could add something to say "X, X and X described the events as terrorism" or whatever. But assuming that they meet some objective definition just isn't true because for as many people you can find using the label, you find as many opposing its use. Yr Enw (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
We need to see a consensus of the term in reliable sources, otherwise, you enable the ability to cherry-pick the use of a given term from just a small number of sources without Wikivoice. You can include that term with attribution if it is appropriately WP:DUE (not a consensus of sources, but also not a minor/fringe viewpoint). Masem (t) 12:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
sounds to me you are making excuses for terrorists to not be called what they are. are you a sympathizer of their cause? Mark28482 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:NPA. And all I am saying is we go with related sources, not what we think is right. In this specific case, there were actually stories related to BBC's hesitation to call Hamas as terrorists, so that complicates matters. Masem (t) 18:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
no, it does not. it is clear as night and day -- it was an act of terrorism, and denying this fact makes one complicit at best. Mark28482 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, from reading some of your discussions in the various talk pages, I think you may just not be understanding the wiki policies and their rationales. (Copied from elsewhere:) On Wiki, we are not the arbiters of what constitutes terrorism. We report what reliable sources say, aiming to reflect the general consensus in media and scholarship as best as possible. So, you could say "X says Y is terrorism" but you generally shouldn't interpret the acts as terrorism in your narrative yourself. For what it's worth, I would caveat every mention of the word on every article with "described as" but that doesn't mean I condone any of the actions, and neither can I reasonably be expected to edit every article on this site. Yr Enw (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
that is absolute nonsense, it is not judgment, saying those were terrorist attacks is like saying the sky is blue, the sun is bright, etc. it is simple fact. that is what words are for, they have meaning. it is not a subject definition. it is an objective meaning, that is what the word means. Mark28482 (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This seems to have extended into the Problem of universals and Epistemology, so I'll let the WP:DR take its course. Yr Enw (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." What is "terrorism" very much depends on what point of view one takes, and hence why its not objective at all. We wait for confirmation and consensus within reliable sources. Masem (t) 12:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
They're committing acts of war, and war crimes on top of it. It's a lot worse than terrorism. I'm not sick in the head because you're cutting them slack and accusing them only of terrorism. And you haven't responded to the point I was making to you. Largoplazo (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Our article on terrorism says: "The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel)." (emphasis added) Hence I don't know why some acts during the ongoing Israel–Gaza war shouldn't be considered both war crimes and acts of terrorism. Indeed, Re'im music festival massacre and Be'eri massacre (among others) are listed in Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2020s, so I guess the matter is effectively already settled. Gawaon (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The OP is blocked for two weeks. We go by reliable sources. My paper today says the BBC is using "militant" and resisting the government's pressure to use "terrorist". Interesting as it's Director General is a Tory and until this year its Chair. It does look like both sides are committing war crimes. Note we do not call Hamas a terrorist organisation, see Hamas#Terrorist designation. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Do any terrorist groups call them selves terrorists (hell do any Neo-nazis ever own up to it)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Regime

Regime is a negatively charged word, how should I add to this? Parham wiki (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't add it, because it is not always a negatively charged word. E.g. in a legal context it simply means the system of applicable laws and regulations ("the US copyright regime"). In historical contexts, it simply means "a ruling class, body, or system", as in "the ancient regime in France", "the pre-Hanoverian regime of the clans in the Scottish Highlands". And so on. This guideline is not for cataloguing every word that ever possibly has non-neutral uses.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Not saying we need to document every term, but I've suggested the idea before of terms that generally are not considered contentious as the event/topic they are to apply to falls farther back in time from the present, in that we gain more and more academic sources to cement these terms as objective in that context. Key is understanding the context - sources using the term far far distant from the event are likely using it objectively and how we should use it, whereas these in the short term of the event or topic may more likely be using it in a way that WTW would caution against. Masem (t) 23:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Regime in the context of describing a group in power is definitely a pejorative value-laden term. In a completely differ context and completely unrelated meaning (per he one described in SMcCandlish's post it is not. We should proceed accordingly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, all our lists of "words to watch" already end with an ellipsis, indicating that they are not meant to be comprehensive and that there are other such words that could be added. I don't think that should be changed, hence we don't have to list every such word that comes to mind. Gawaon (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to "Contentious labels" section

I reckon the issue with the current editing style rules is that some editors see them as Wikipedia making some moral call. They think Wikipedia is saying there's no such thing as a "terrorist," 'cause you could always swap it out with "freedom fighter." And usually this approach works. But it gets real tricky when these supposed freedom fighters start doing some pretty messed-up stuff. The real point here is that we do need to explain this better. Wikipedia ain't saying terrorists are as rare as unicorns – we know they exist in real life. We're just telling folks how to talk about it. But yeah, we could sure use clearer guidelines that lean toward describing what's really going on. Throw in another paragraph in that "Contentious labels" section, like, as the second one:

Wikipedia forthrightly recognizes the presence of both racism and terrorism in the tangible realm. For instance, when confronted with acts atrocities carried out, the suitable course of action involves designating these events as "Hate Crime" or "Acts of Terror" provided there is substantial and dependable corroboration from reliable sources affirming their classification as such.

What's on your mind?, Infinity Knight (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour in principle, but think this needs a bit more work. "acts atrocities" is somehow double, and I'd rather say it is entirely appropriate to label them as "hate crimes" or "terrorist acts" instead of the suitable course of action involves designating these events as "Hate Crime" or "Acts of Terror". Gawaon (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Sounds cool with me. I've added it in. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Reverted. You'll need a much wider consensus to insert something like that, likely an Rfc, unless it's clear from follow-up here that there is overwhelming agreement. Also, Wikipedia doesn't "forthrightly recognize" anything; where did that come from? Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Please don't add it, you do not have consensus to do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
There have been an objection raised concerning the statement Wikipedia does recognize the presence of both racism and terrorism in the tangible realm. as referenced in [4]. I welcome your input. Is there room for improvement in the phrasing, or is there any uncertainty regarding the existence of the problem described above? Infinity Knight (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I respect the question, but it seems to limit the scope to what's wrong with your wording and how to improve it, but I think that's the wrong focus; so rather than answer it directly, I would turn it around and say, what wrong with what was there before, and does it need improvement at all?
(edit conflict) I see a follow-up response which appears to say pretty much what I intended to, but I'm a bit thrown off by the indentation of G's response below, but I'll leave this here as a direct reply to IK @18:50, 15 Oct., which also seems to be the case with G's response. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion, my response below might have been given in response to either comment, I guess (and I did indeed write it after the one from 18:50 above). Gawaon (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Rechecking what we have already, I get the impression that the proposed addition may be more or less redundant (and hence unnecessary), since the existing text already says similar things. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, 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. – The new addition did not explicitly require attribution, but otherwise seems to say more or less the same thing? (Such terms may be used, but only with lots of support from reliable sources.) So I guess the question is: What would be the advantage of adding it considering what's already there? Gawaon (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem is mainly about categories and lists that deal with human activities tagged as "acts of terror." It's a real conundrum because putting an event in one of those lists kinda labels the folks behind it as "terrorists" without attribution. We haven't really addressed this point.
What's making it more confusing is that the current guideline makes it look like Wikipedia is saying there's no such thing as a "terrorist" – like you can always switch it out with "freedom fighter." Infinity Knight (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, that's understandable, but then 1) this is the wrong venue for discussing categories or lists; if you create a conversation at one of those, please ping me and I'll respond; and 2) I don't think it makes Wikipedai look like it's saying that. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't actually say anything like the "terrorist" – "freedom fighter" thing. As for the conundrum, I suppose it might exist in theory, but in practice it seems that stuff is added to lists such as Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 2020s without all that much problems. Gawaon (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem is pretty down-to-earth. Check out this RfC for more info. The guideline kinda gives off this vibe like there's some Heisenberg-style duality going on with the terms. We should definitely tackle the problems brought up regarding this guideline.Infinity Knight (talk)
That's an interesting discussion, but how does it depend on wording changes on this page? The principle "check reliable sources to decide" would in any case remain, even with the changes you have suggested. Gawaon (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't find the discussion in that RfC all that intriguing. So, getting back to the real deal – what about the practical puzzle? Should we get rid of the categories and lists with names that fall under "Contentious labels"? And, by the way, what's up with attribution? In my humble opinion, we definitely need some clarification on that whole Heisenberg-style duality thing. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:NODISCLAIMERS, and on top of that random WP editors are not in a position to be issuing what amount to position statements that are apt to be interpreted as coming from WMF (even if both the editorial majority and WMF probably agree with the stance).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what might cause problems, but fine, let's steer clear of WMF, Jimbo, and the big guy upstairs. How about this to deal with the issue:

When it comes to pages discussing acts of atrocities, it's perfectly acceptable to label them as "hate crimes" or "terrorist acts" by including those pages in categories and lists with names containing contentious labels, provided there is substantial and dependable corroboration from reliable sources affirming their classification as such.

I'm a bit iffy on that whole Heisenberg-style duality deal. What do you think? Infinity Knight (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I guess I just don't see what problem this is trying to solve; we do have such categories, and they are full of entries. Whether a particular article should be categorized in one of them is a matter for discussion at the article's talk page, and those discussions are happening, and they're already grounded in treatment in reliable sources (even if sometimes appearances are made by people who do not understand WP:NOT#FORUM, etc.). So, there doesn't seem to be an actual, concrete problem here. We should not add any line-item to MoS unless it is to solve a problem that produces persistent, recurrent editorial strife that can be traced to a lack of such guidance. But our policies already provide that guidance, as does the gist of this guideline secondarily.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
PS: This already all seems adequately covered by the exant wording, "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". What is the point of re-stating the same thing again as "acceptable to label them ... provided there is substantial and dependable corroboration from reliable sources affirming their classification as such"? If it's just about injecting the word "category/categorize/categorization" in there, MoS isn't really about categorization anyway, so this isn't the right venue for somethig like that. Probably better taken up at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing articles about people (ultimately every organization or force to which a label like "terrorist" could apply is made up of people, who are reponsible for the acts also so labeled). And we care for WP:BLP reasons much more about potentially PoV-pushing categorization when it comes to people than the inanimate, so the nexus of the debate really is BLP-centered. But Wikipedia talk:Categorization more generally could also be a better venue for this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand your perspective, and it's valid to emphasize that categories are already in place. When there's a real clash between how things are and what the rules say (attribution), that's not a good deal for the project. It's definitely something we need to work on. Indeed, much of the decision-making about categorization should occur at the article's talk page, guided by reliable sources, but when the guidelines don't match up with how things really are, that's a problem. It is impossible to attribute inline for lists and categories. It's important to ensure the MoS serves to alleviate persistent issues that arise due to a lack of such guidance. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
That just reinforces for me that this is wrong venue for discussions about categorizations, because we are not going to drop the attribution requirement that pertains to text, just because categories (which really have nearly nothing to do with MoS, other than their names generally follow the same spelling conventions and such as article titles and text) don't have sources and attributions at them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, it's a bit like an ostrich burying its head in the sand – just saying there's no issue doesn't make it go away. Infinity Knight (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing respectful about ignoring every single bit of the substance of my comments (including me politely directly you to the actually apropriate venues for category-related guideline adjustments), and just retorting with a flippant insult. WP:FALSECIV.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I want to offer my apologies if my previous comment caused any discomfort. I used the reference to an ostrich as a figure of speech, indicating the act of ignoring something obvious with the hope that it will eventually resolve itself. The fact remains that there is an issue at hand – the guideline lacks clarity, and we've provided examples of potential misuse. So, what's our course of action moving forward? Should we consider banning individuals who inquire about the Heisenberg-style duality? Perhaps there are more appropriate solutions.
The problem, as I see it, lies within a specific section of this guideline. Why should we seek to address it elsewhere? On a related note, I gained a deeper understanding of Wikipedia policies through the BBC, especially as they are currently facing challenges in the UK due to their minority stance. Their policy significantly restricts their ability to convey reality and has resulted in some form of censorship, even regarding statements made by their Royals. I could provide references. I believe it's essential for Wikipedia to explain how they navigate these challenges. Otherwise, it may come across as offensive to certain individuals, as if it's either endorsing or disavowing the existence of terrorism or racism, which are indeed real issues.
I acknowledge that this proposal draws inspiration from the BBC, as they have openly recognized an existing problem. While I don't take issue with the guideline, I believe there is definite room for improvement, and this proposal aims to move in that direction. Infinity Knight (talk)
I don't see what BBC and their editorial policies have to do with us, and with the fact that MoS doesn't control categorization. Even if you are onto something, and there really is some problem to address, this page isn't the place for it. This guideline is already pretty clear, but it's not anything to do with what articles go in what categories. I'm running out of novel ways to re-explain this. And there's nothing about the current wording here that is "either endorsing or disavowing the existence of terrorism or racism". There is nothing even faintly endorsing or disavowing in making it clear that these terms should not be applied to encyclopedia subjects without reliable sourcing, and we're already doing that. If there's an actual issue (or issues plural) relating to categorization of people, organizations/bodies, or events, using such terms, that doesn't have anything to do with MoS but is a matter for the categorization guidelines. And both of these sets of guidelines are entirely dependent on WP:NOR and (when applicable) WP:BLP policy. I get the vague feeling you want it to be easier to apply these terms, as categorizers, to subjects you disapprove of, but that's not going to happen without policy changes (same goes for making it notably more difficult to use such terms when they are common in the RS material).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
So, let's ban random WP editors and say everything is crystal clear, despite the evidence to the contrary, as noted just in the preceding section. I'm not suggesting that I interpret the guideline as "either endorsing or disavowing" anything, but I can understand how such questions might arise. I'm certainly cognizant of the principles of BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) and NOR (No Original Research), any reason to think otherwise? What would be beneficial indeed are references to policies and guidelines that offer a structured framework for listing and categorizing events that involve disturbing human activities. Designating these events would require following the principles outlined in the "Contentious labels" section, which is governed by this guideline. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Why are you talking (twice now) about banning people? This has nothing to do with the substance of this discussion, and is just histrionic hand-waving. No one is victimizing you; you are digging your own hole that you find yourself in. "I'm not suggesting that I interpret the guideline as 'either endorsing or disavowing' anything"? Let me quote you back to yourself: "[This guideline] may come across as offensive to certain individuals, as if it's either endorsing or disavowing the existence of terrorism or racism". Looking over the wording in it, there is nothing potentially "offensive" about what it says, other than to someone who is willfully misinterpreting it as an excuse for WP:GREATWRONGS/WP:ADVOCACY behavior, which is not what what this site is for. More constructively: "What would be beneficial indeed are references to policies and guidelines that offer a structured framework for listing and categorizing events that involve disturbing human activities" – Yes, but for the fourth time, this page does not have anything to do with categorization of articles. You are at the wrong venue. I can't think of any way to make this clearer to you. It is entirely possible that the categorization guidelines would be adjusted in some way, and even refer to this guideline in particular as something to apply in gist to categorization, but nothing that happens at this talk page is going to make that happen, because it's not related in any way to categorization guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
First, let's talk about banning Suicide by cop. The Mark28482 (talk) that raised a question and got his name crossed out in this section. From a linguistic perspective, there's a diglossia here, and Wikipedia has developed a highly codified language register that native speakers sometimes struggle to understand. In my view, the crossed-out random WP editor was probably offended by the Heisenberg-style duality.
I'm not a lawyer, and I have very little experience in writing style guidelines. I haven't been sipping Mojitos at the Cheese Cake Factory in St. Petersburg, Florida with WMF executives for over a decade. I'm just a regular WP user like all of us. Perhaps the potential risks of acknowledging basic facts in these guidelines should be explained more clearly.
I'll leave the rest for now, as I'm participating in the RfC, and discussing it further might seem like a conflict of interest. There are certainly risks related to the hate crime clarification. I have this nightmare where Wikipedia gets completely overrun by POV zombies. We need to be really cautious here. But I sure don't want some random Lucifer reading about himself on Wikipedia and thinking, "Yeah, it's all just a matter of perspective. Man, those angels are just talkin' smack about me, but in reality, I'm a total superstar 🌟 Maybe we'll continue this discussion after the RfC is closed though. Infinity Knight (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Why inject extraneous discussion of some other phrase, like "suicide by cop", into a thread that has nothing to do with that? It's just more hand-wavy noisemaking. "Wikipedia has developed a highly codified language register": All large-scale projects, online or offline, develop a jargon and have an internal culture and a learning curve. But there's nothing jargony about instructing editors, as we are already doing, to not apply terms like "terrorist" or "racist" without a preponderance of independent reliable sources behind them (and, to address comment elsewhere above, that doesn't mean that BBC in particular has to be using such a term; how one single source is written is irrelevant). "I have very little experience in writing style guidelines": See WP:Policy writing is hard and WP:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance. I have no idea what that stuff about Lucifer and angels is supposed to mean. For my part, I have this nightmare where Wikipedia gets completely overrun by people who try to change all of its policies and guidelines to express themselves with their own personal preferences and passing ideas. Except that's not a bad dream, it's an actual daily project-management struggle (e.g. [5][6]). These pages need to stay substantively stable, are already bloated as it is, and are difficult to get consensus to change, because even seemingly minor changes to them can affect thousands (potentially even millions) of articles, and tend to interoperate in subtle ways with multiple other policies and guidelines and processes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I happened to post about this in the Village Pump yesterday. Yr Enw (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of discussion elsewhere

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy) regarding MOS:TERRORIST. The thread is Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST. Thank you. Yr Enw (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC Proposed Addition to "Contentious labels" section

When it comes to pages discussing acts of atrocities, it's perfectly acceptable to label them as "hate crimes" or "terrorist acts" by including those pages in categories and lists with names containing contentious labels, provided there is substantial and dependable corroboration from reliable sources affirming their classification as such. Should we insert the quote into the "Contentious labels" section, placing it as the second paragraph? Infinity Knight (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support As I mentioned in the previous discussion. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. MoS really has nothing to do with categorization decisions, and it has already been explained to this editor what the more proper venues are to address this itch, which does not actually appear to be a real problem anyway (there is no evidence of any general difficulty, that guidelines on any topic could remedy, in properly categorizing articles relating to organizations and events that reliable sources label with terms like "terrorism" or "hate crime").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose:this proposed use of labels would be uninformative, and would only serve to stir up emotion and arguments. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed addition chiefly seems to repeat what the manual already says (in more diplomatic language) and what's already the status quo, see the discussion above. Its addition wouldn't solve any real problem. Gawaon (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SMcCandlish. And the wording, "it's perfectly acceptable to..." isn't "guideline-like" language, and would amount to the guideline undermining itself. DFlhb (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DOUBT in situations where the sources themselves express doubt.

I have occasionally seen editors cite MOS:DOUBT to remove expressions of doubt that are present in the sources; I don't think this is its intent. The idea is that we should not introduce doubt; but if the tone of the best available sources as a whole is doubtful, then our article should broadly reflect that (and in fact it can sometimes be misusing them to cover them in a way that implies more certainty than the sources support.) This can be fixed with just a few words - something like "When not present in the sources..." at the start, or a sentence saying something like when the sources themselves express doubt, it is appropriate to reflect it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would even say something strong that just "appropriate" to reflect it, may even "essential", as long as it is predicated that sources have themselves inserted the doubt factor. If the majority of sources are including doubt, we absolutely need to keep it that way, not just say its preferable to keep it. Masem (t) 00:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. If the sources are in doubt about the veracity or particulars of something, we need to make that clear to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"the late"

I keep running into this in encyclopedia article text, and it needs to stop. We should probably add the following to the bottom of MOS:EUPHEMISMS:

Wikipedia notes in plain language that persons are deceased, when this is relevant to the context. Do not use the euphemism "the late" to refer to such persons, even when the fact of their death is pertinent.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it a euphemism, or a useful shorthand to say that X was already dead? PamD 06:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you give a couple of examples where you find it inappropriate? Thanks. PamD 06:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
It's always inappropriate on WP, because it's a cagey (verging on honorific) euphemism for "dead", and it is almost invariably used in sentences to "fact-drop" the idea that the party is dead when it either has already been stated earlier or simply has no bearing on the material at all. The latest one I encountered was the following (after a bunch of style cleanup to make it proper English): "Sometime during its history, the name changed from Maricha High School to Baramaricha Delwar Hossain High School in honor of its first headmaster, the late Delwar Hossain." Whether some random non-notable schoolmaster is still living is of no encyclopedic relevance; "the late" is trying to instill a sense of reverence for him; and high schools are virtually never named after living people, so it was redundant anyway. But this is just one example. I run into this crap way too frequently in Stub through B-class articles (what I spend most of my time working to improve to properly encyclopedic quality instead of polishing the chrome on GAs and FAs). If we need to indicate contextually that someone is dead, there are many ways to do this, such as "Jane Smith. who died in 2023," "Jane Smith (1961–2023)", "Jane Smith (d. 2023)", or in a less truncated form by introducing the allegedly noteworthy person earlier in the material with some information about their life and death, then mentioning them again later with dating that makes it clear that the later mention is posthumous. If we don't have a source for a death date in the first place, we most often don't have a source for the claimed fact of the death anyway (except for a deep-historical figure about whom dates are sketchy or unknown).
If for some reason you think this euphemism is somehow encyclopedic, ask yourself why it is virtually unheard of in our Good and Featured articles. Editors clearly recognize it as unencylopedic euphemism and remove it. I spent over an hour searching through FAs (fully 50% of them all) and GAs (hundreds of them), and (other than false-positives like "the late 1970s", "The Late Show", "the late Republic era", "the late 19th century", "the late Precambrian", "the late Old English period", "the Late Middle Ages", "the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods", "the late 12th Dynasty", "the late spring of 1968", "in the late innings of a game", etc.), the only cases of it I could find at all were the following:
  1. in a direct quotation;
  2. in an unnecessarily long-winded note explaining a "See also" entry;
  3. in "When supporters of the late Richard II attempted a coup, Henry IV found safety in the Tower of London", but it would be much more sensible in the earlier material to indicate when Ricahrd II died;
  4. in "The castle remained on the market for the following decade until bought in 1960 by Antonin Besse II, son of the late Sir Antonin Besse" but there is no contextual reason to indicate that Sir Antonin was dead, much less with this wording, and maybe not to name-drop him at all since he's unrelated to the purchase;
  5. in "named after the late football commentator and Gillingham supporter Brian Moore" – whether he was alive or dead at the time of the name is irrelevant, and for something like this, dead is almost always the case anyway;
  6. in "now owned by Gammidge and the family of the late Minney", which is redundant (if it passed into the possession of a historical figure's modern family, the figure is obviously dead);
  7. in "In 2009, Rihanna was appointed as an Honorary Ambassador of Youth and Culture for Barbados by the late Prime Minister, David Thompson", which is patently nonsensical (a dead guy can't appoint anyone anything; it's supposed to indicate that Thompson died later, but that is contextually completely irrelevant anyway);
  8. "Louis VIII died in November 1226 and his eldest son, Louis IX, succeeded him. The late King willed that his youngest sons were to ..." and in same article "Pope Nicholas died on 22 August 1280 ... one of his supporters, taking advantage of the rift between the late Pope's relatives and ...", both cases being completely redundant with death dates already given (and the first is nonsensical again; a dead king can't will that anything happen at all);
  9. in "Khan performed a tribute to the late Yash Chopra along with...", redundant because earlier material in the article already makes it clear Chopra had died (and a tribute performance is almost always in memory of a deceased party anyway, not that it encyclopedically matters what the background particulars of a one-off concert were);
  10. in the title of a cited source (newspaper article).
That's a shockingly low incidence for a phrase that is so popular in journalism and other non-encyclopedic writing, and it very strongly indicates that editors actively resist its usage here. Feel free to try to find more cases youself if you have more time to blow on this, but I consider the point clearly made already (if you insist, here are searches that'll narrow it down, in GAs and FAs). If you manage to find a few more, I'll be happy to explain how to rewrite them more encyclopedically. In the interim, I'm probably going to clean up all the cases I already found (other than the quotation and the source title of course).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
While it amounts to a euphemism, I'd make an exception for it because in the context in which it's used, as an attributive adjective, it's used almost exclusively, basically the word that's used in such instances. For example, while it's natural to write "Martin Luther King died when he was shot ..." or "Martin Luther King has been dead since 1968", probably no one writes "In the words of the dead Martin Luther King, ....", and it seems unnatural. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Kind of making my point for me. Wikipedia has no reason to ever say "In the words of the late Martin Luther King Jr." [I think that's who you really meant]. It's emotive, unencyclopedic writing, and generally makes no sense. If the quotation is meaningful, it will almost never matter whether the speaker/writer is now deceased, and if for some special contextual reason we need to make it clear that he's deceased, there are numerous other ways to do that as I've already outlined, e.g. "... Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968) ...", or by introducing MLK earlier in the material making it clear he's no longer alive and using the quotation later. And "In the words of ..." is itself unencyclopedic, magazine-style writing that we should never use. It conpiratorily wink-wink-nudge-nudges the reader that we, in the wise editorial voice, consider this quote especially significant and something the reader had better absorb. It's a WP:NPOV violation. (This is conceptually closely related to why pull quotes were deprecated in mainspace a long time ago: another reader-manipulating, magazine-style, quotation-abusing practice.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Definitely add something deprecating it. For example I'm about to remove it at Rhonda Paisley, where it says "She is the second daughter of the late Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader and Northern Ireland's former First Minister Ian Paisley". Is anyone dead entitled to the prefix, or is it anyone who has died in the last 15-30 years as suggested here (where it says there's no hard and fast rule regarding when to use it)? Allowing even short term uses of it just adds more work for the future that might get overlooked. FDW777 (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Surely the King example is about someone everyone who would care what he said knows he's dead. So no, I don't think it should be used. If anyone does insist after being told it shouldn't be used they can come here and ask for an exception. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
There are times where noting when a person had died in relation to a topic (eg they might have initiated something while alive and then it resolves sometime after their death), but we still can avoid "the late" terminology for that. Masem (t) 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if this is ENGVAR or a bee in someone's bonnet, but it is a common and useful disambiguator in English. For example "the late Queen" clearly refers to HM Queen Elizabeth II, whereas "the Queen" should mean Queen Camilla, but might mean the late Queen. Personally though I would only use it for the the fairly recent past and usually to differentiate two similar titles as in the queen example above. I'd not use it for Martin Luther King Jr, since that identifies him precisely, and certainly not for Richard II. Indeed I'd suggest that it should not be classified as a euphemism at all, it is simply "late" as against "current": "The present Duke has continued the restoration work of his late father" is clear, concise and natural English. To remove the "late" would require the insertion of a sentence or footnote to explain about inheritance of the title. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I wondered whether there is a difference in usage across the pond. There are cases where it's just a useful, compact, way to remind or inform the reader that the person being mentioned was dead at the time when they are being mentioned, in a sentence which might otherwise be unclear. It helps the reader. PamD 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not an ENGVAR matter; the same convention is used in American writing (in journalism and such). But WP has no reason to write "the late queen" when "Elizabeth II" will do, or some other clearer way of expressing the situation. "I can find a usage that I understood" isn't evidence that it's a best practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Example 8 above shows, twice, that "late" can be useful to help the reader distinguish between two people (here two popes and two kings), without them having to pause to work out which one is being discussed. PamD 08:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
But that material was not about two popes, and the material (in both cases) would much more sensibly be written using names, or rewritten some other way to avoid any need for a "the late" construction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Transcontinental

I suggest that occurrences of "transcontinental" be expunged on sight. There's a trivia buff mania for labeling countries like Georgia, Turkey, Kingdom of the Netherlands, and so forth as "transcontinental", often in the lead. But "transcontinental" doesn't even mean "incorporating territory in more than one continent", as it's used in these instances. It means "across a continent". Searching Google Books for uses of "transcontinental country" in works from before 2001, the matches I've looked at apply the phrase exclusively to the United States, Canada, and Russia/the Soviet Union, to express that each of those countries spans an entire continent.

The meaning the phrase is given here seems to be just that, a Wikimeaning: Look at the Google Ngram, where we can see that appearances of the word soared at just around the launch of Wikipedia. We aren't supposed to make up our own words, right? Or giving the world the impression that they exist? It seems possible that Wikipedia has fueled a meaning that never existed before.

Even if one takes that meaning for granted, the word always makes it look like we're trying to impress the reader with a five-dollar word rather than convey information, especially when it's redundant within the sentence where it appears. For example, "Georgia is a country located in Eastern Europe and West Asia" stands on its own. Inserting "transcontinental" in front of "country" adds zero information and serves only to show off the (incorrect) use of the word. It also seems to serve the purpose of impressing the reader with the knowledge that the country lies in more than one continent—which amounts to trying to make the unremarkable seem remarkable. There's no reason why a country's territory would end at the same boundaries that humans have notionally established to delimit what we call continents. While we often feel a mania for simple categorization and wish to point out anything that defies neat classification, the premise that countries should neatly fit into continents in the first place is flawed.

Might this be mentioned in the MOS page? Largoplazo (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Virtually every dictionary appears to agree with you. But see WP:MOSBLOAT and WP:CREEP: things should not be added to MoS (or other guidelines for that matter) unless they are long-term causes of inter-editor dispute. This is just something you can go around and fix, probably with little pushback. This might be a reasonable entry at List of commonly misused English words, but sources would be needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Update: Actually, because we have Category:Transcontinental countries and List of transcontinental countries ("This is a list of countries with territory that straddles more than one continent, known as transcontinental states or intercontinental states"), there is apt to be push-back after all. It's unclear to me whether there is sufficient sourcing to support that use of the word, which appears to come from WorldAtlas but not otherwise be very well-attested. OxfordDictionaries.com did provide a definition that could encompass this sense: "Extending across or relating to two or more continents." The Geography Realm source also seems to use it in this sense, but most of the others cited do not unless they are doing it in material that was not quoted in our article, and that would require a lot of research to establish one way or the other. Anyway, it's clear that this is a form of content dispute to be settled by sources, not something MOS:WTW could "legislate" about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Do those sources predate Wikipedia? I worry that referring to such sources is circular. Largoplazo (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I decided to pose that question in a CFD at the category. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
PS: I would suggest in the interim that instances of "transcontinental country" in articles like Turkey should be linked to List of transcontinental countries for clarity, where the meaning of the potentially confusing term is explained.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Relative time references

  1. I'd like to add "previously" to the list of words to watch. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources.
  2. We should consider removing "since" from the list. It is used frequently in the section's example Alberto Fernández and is widely used, including in Wikipedia's most popular articles.

Jahalive (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"Previously" would be fine to add. But "since" should not be removed. This is a list of words to watch, i.e. terms to be carefuly in using, not a list of banned words.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"The greatest"

You input is welcome at WT:MOS#MOS:PUFFERY, where there is discussion about how to include "the greatest". --Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify that's "the greatest/best" with the prefix of "regarded/considered as one of" and with the suffix of "of all-time/his (or her) generation". RevertBob (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I Suggest "Stint" Should Be Replaced In Most Context

CLOSED
Probably innocent forum shopping by a new editor. Nevertheless, would be better to avoid cross-posting. See original discussion or maybe try at the Ref desk page suggested there. Mathglot (talk)

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.

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#"Stint"_Is_an_Anachronism_and_Should_Not_Be_Used for previous discussion.

There are better words to use than "stint" It seems to me that the word "stint" can be replaced with "time" in most context (or "return to" in the case where an athlete leaves a team to play for a different team and then plays again for the original team) to have a slightly more accurate sounding sentence. "Stint" seems more like injury to me than temporality or tenure. The suggestion is for headlines, topics, subject descriptions, article titles, and the like, not for descriptive sentences or paragraphs in an article (though it sounds no better there).

ProofCreature (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I' commented there. You couldn't get agreement there so are now coming here without a courtesy notification at the Village pump. You did say early on that you might bring it here, but you still should have let people there know. I have. Here is what I wrote there:
A stint can have different meanings according context, but my experience is that context is always clear.
verb
supply a very ungenerous or inadequate amount of (something).
"stowage room hasn't been stinted"
noun
1. a person's fixed or allotted period of work.
"his varied career included a stint as a magician"
2.limitation of supply or effort.
"a collector with an eye for quality and the means to indulge it without stint"
I see that User:Mathglot noted that we use the word about 36,000 times. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I request forgiveness for not giving greater notification at the Village pump.
Are there any other protocols that should best be used when posting a topic to multiple Talk pages? Any authorities from whom to request permission, or communities boards to notify the greater user base, or a mailing list or something? (There is some sarcasm in my comment, but there is greater honesty in it.) I enjoy this discussion and would like to learn other more diverse opinions.
ProofCreature (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
In general, you should not cross-post because it tends to fragment a conversation, with different people responding in different places, and leads to confusion, or chaos. It's perfectly okay to add a *brief* entry at another location (or several locations, as long as they are germane) that simply points to the main discussion, with a message something like: "A discussion is taking place at [[Pagename#Section name]] about <some topic>; your feedback would be appreciated. ~~~~". That doesn't fragment the conversation, it just invites people to participate in the one discussion, and that is okay. Mathglot (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Involved close, but I think it's justified in this case. Mathglot (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2024 (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.

"Wikipedia:PUFFERY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:PUFFERY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25 § Wikipedia:PUFFERY until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Puff phrases" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Puff phrases has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25 § Wikipedia:Puff phrases until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Euphemisms and dysphemisms

Summary: The lack of equal wording warning about dysphemisms in section § Euphemisms is resulting in assertions at discussions that claim to be based on MOS:EUPHEMISM but run contrary to its spirit and are non-neutral. We should make it clear that dysphemisms can be equally problematic. Some re-org wrt § Contentious labels might be required later.

Avoiding euphemisms is all well and good, but our coverage at section § Euphemisms doesn't go far enough because it doesn't say anything about dysphemisms and leaves a hole that can be exploited to introduce or maintain non-neutral wording. This is having negative effects, imho, as it permits an appeal to MOS:EUPHEMISM to argue, paradoxically, in favor of non-neutral wording containing a dysphemism. This is happening now at at least one move request. We should add a statement about dysphemisms to clarify this. I haven't thought deeply about wording yet, but how about this for a first attempt; change the first sentence thus:

−
[[Euphemism]]s should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms.
+
[[Euphemism]]s and [[dysphemism]]s should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms.

and add the following as a new paragraph two:

−
should not be masked as ''[[collateral damage]]''.
+
should not be masked as ''[[collateral damage]]''. In the same way, precise, [[WP:NPOV|neutral wording]] should be used instead of [[dysphemism]]s. Avoid dysphemisms ''cripple'', ''addict'', and ''ghetto'' in favor of ''person with a disability'', ''person with substance use disorder'', or ''low-income neighborhood''.

We might want to add a second sentence, or new examples to the boxed material to include: "dumpster fire, hellhole, ex-con, mental patient..." as well.

Looking further down the road, the concept of Euphemisms is really a subset of the concept of § Contentious labels, and imho should be a subsection of it. However, it is only half of that concept, the other half being dysphemisms, which should also be a subsection. Note that § Contentious labels gives examples of both. This possible future organization is already hinted at by the boxed material at § Contentious labels, which includes both terrorist and freedom fighter, for example. That issue could be better explained in the context of a Contentious labels section that included both Euphemisms and Dysphemisms as subsections, but that would require a fair bit of consolidation and refactoring. This foreshadows where this might eventually lead; however, I don't wish to complicate things by addressing that now; more important and more urgent, imho, is to deal with the current situation which allows MOS to be cited in a way that supports non-neutral dysphemisms for MOS's lack of stating anything to the contrary.

WP:NPOV trumps MOS, and MOS should be adjusted to comply by making it clear that dysphemisms can be equally as non-neutral as euphemisms, and are likewise words to watch; failing to do so is causing twisted logic in discussions by assuming the contrary.

Full disclosure: I raised this discussion because of a problem I perceived here while taking part in a move request at Genital modification and mutilation, where my impression was that MOS:EUPHEMISM is being misused in a way contrary to WP:NPOV. I do have an opinion there, but I don't wish to tilt the scales in any way, so I would oppose making any change to MOS while that discussion is going on. However that turns out, my intent here is to improve MOS coverage and nothing more.

Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. Cripple is of course an old-fashioned term which one would normally avoid today anyway (though cf. Cripple#Reappropriation), but "addict" strikes me as neutral enough, and "ghetto" might be used misleadingly for "low-income neighborhood", but it might also refer to an actual ghetto. Words like "dumpster fire" (in the sense explained in dumpster fire) or "hellhole, ex-con" strike me as so non-encyclopedic that it goes without saying that we wouldn't use them outside of quotes anyway. Gawaon (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be right about the examples, but please ignore any bad examples—that wasn't really my point. if you think dysphemisms should not be mentioned at all, that would be different, and I'd like to hear your argument about that. The problem I see now is that some editors are turning MOS on its head, arguing in favor of dysphemisms by linking MOS:EUPHEMISM, and that's crazytown and contrary to NPOV. We can always fix crappy examples in whatever wording is chosen. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not opposed to the addition of "and dysphemism", if that's your point. Gawaon (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I see no issues with the addition. — Masem (t) 22:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested at Talk:Ahomisation

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ahomisation#Neologism as title. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Mos:RT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:RT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:RT until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Mos:Neo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mos:Neo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Mos:Neo until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RACIST" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:RACIST has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Wikipedia:RACIST until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH talk! 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Should WP:BUZZWORD be moved here?

Reading WP:BUZZWORD, I noticed that it recommends avoiding the word "solution" and its wikilink leads here, but the anchor is broken. My investigation then revealed that this page (MOS:WTW) used to contain a section on the word "solution", but the whole section was removed back in 2010, with a simple edit message of "tightening": [7].

I think the topic of buzzWORDs to avoid/watch belongs here more than in the essay where it's currently found (WP:PLAINENGLISH). Do you agree? If so, do you have any advice for me regarding moving the content (e.g. should I incorporate the deleted text in any way)? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The easiest solution (uh) may be to just remove the broken link from "solution". Content gone for 14 years probably wasn't missed, otherwise it would have been restored much earlier. Gawaon (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:D Obviously, but that doesn't mean it's also the best one. One possible explanation for why it wasn't missed is that we do have WP:BUZZWORD and that's also why I'm suggesting moving that content here, rather than simply restoring the original one. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
In my viewpoint, that advice is fine where it is. Nothing wrong with it, but it reads more like an essay than like a MOS page. Plus, of course, it expands on issues that are already quite well covered in the MOS, so merging it in would probably require considerable work. Gawaon (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
How about a shortened version? It could even just be mentioned in one or two sentences under an existing section like MOS:PUFFERY and keep the original WP:BUZZWORD in the essay for a longer explanation. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:FLUFF" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:FLUFF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10 § Wikipedia:FLUFF until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition to Note C suggestion

I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed. Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out. 5Q5|✉

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_14&oldid=1239675040"