Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

RfC: "Prestigious" at Harvard University

There's a RfC regarding the use of "prestigious" in the lead of the Harvard University article. Given that whatever consensus emerges from this discussion (if any) could potentially set a precedent for the use of this\these term(s) at other university articles and in other contexts as well, I would like to solicit other editors' feedback on the issue. Please review the discussion and leave your feedback here. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cult

"Words that may introduce bias" suggests cult should not be used, but does not include where cult is acceptable as in the old policy [1]. This may be interpreted as the cult word is prohibited as done by an anon at Talk:Khandoba#Khandoba_worship. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears you misread the relevant passage. Words that may introduce bias does not, in fact, suggest simply that cult should not be used, but rather that it should not be used "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." It appears that the anon you refer to has misread the entire guideline. Nothing is "prohibited". May I suggest you remind the anon of the guideline's very first words: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia".—DCGeist (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasel

"They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information, and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed"

What does "clearly attributed" mean? -- PBS (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

To attribute in this context means to identify the source of a claim about what people say, think, feel, or believe, or what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven. Clearly means what it usually means.—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Attribution is not defined. Does attribute mean to add a citation or does it mean add an in text attribution? -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Would "cited" be more appropriate? Drop the "clearly." Student7 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the citation does not make clear to whom the claim is actually attributed. That's why we go with both "attributed" and "clearly". If the citation does the job, great. If not (and sometimes as well) specific in text-attribution is warranted.—DCGeist (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said attribution is not defined. If it means in-line attribution it should say so. If it means a citation then it shoudl say so. If it means both then it shoudl say so. -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions need attribution. So "some people believe..." should not be added to an article even if there is a verifiable reliable source using exactly those words. To be added to a Wikipedia article, the source text would have to identify {{who}} the "some people" are, and then content added to the Wikipedia article would include that identification (i.e. "some [attendees at a Star Trek convention] believe...) and a citation to the source text. patsw (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

the word Liberated

Is "Liberated" a word to avoid?

Suppose there are two neighbouring countries, X (people in country X is mostly ethnic 'X'ian) and Y (people in country Y is mostly ethnic 'Y'ian). City X-City is a city in country X for centuries. People living in Z are ethnically both Xian and Yian. Suppose X-City is occupied by Y, then if X armies take X-City back, can we call it "X liberated X-City" in WP? Is this suitable regarding the NPOV policy? Does a consensus throughout Wikipedia exist on the word "liberated"? Kavas (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think "captured" or "taken" is non-judgmental for an encyclopedia. We can avoid taking sides with that sort of word. "Liberated" is for victors and seems WP:POV. Student7 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Souffelweyersheim and many others use this word, so it seems NPOV. Kavas (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In contexts where liberated is contentious, there are many other words which can be substituted for it. patsw (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing of "Relative time references" example

HaeB and I are having a disagreement about the wording of the lead "good" example in this section. Here's how it's been:

Prefer specific statements of time to general ones. Don't say, "Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith." Instead say, "A Gallup poll in April 2010 showed that Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since the start of the year."

I contend that as the counterexample is "recently", the good example's "2010" will before long be inapplicable and outdated. April is a perennial...well, an annual...and better serves alone to make the point about specificity vs. the vagueness of "recently". DocKino (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer specific dates even for the current year. I don't know how many times I've come across statements that I had to dig out the year for just because we didn't put it there at the time, figuring we would before it became outdated. Years, at least, are crucial. The supposed "Smith" quote might go under "History" if it were properly dated even though it will be (in 2013) outdated for (say) the lead. Also, other stuff gets "thrown in" around the statement and the timeframe is no longer obvious without a year. Student7 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1. A relative time reference is always wrong for Wikipedia since the author's "now" is uncoupled from the reader's "now", unlike a magazine or newspaper.
2. A reference to September 2010 is current based on context from September 1, 2010 to infinity. The extent to which it becomes stale information on October 1, 2010 depends on context. The {{asof}} template can help. This allows the reader to make their own judgment regarding the content. patsw (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcision (2)

I see this has been restored again, despite the fact that the addition of a month ago doesn't have any consensus and there clearly isn't a shortage of less controversial examples. References 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the article make the point that the most common opposing term is judgemental. I have to say, the needless inclusion, and it is needless, of this example creates the impression that Wikipedia supports value-laden language. I know, WP:AVOID isn't a list of words to avoid but that is nevertheless the impression this gives.

Still, I'd be interested to hear if any of the supporters see room for compromise: either by the inclusion of the opposing term "genital mutilation" under "contentious labels" or by relegating this example to the text below, explaining in a sentence why terms of this kind might be problematic. If no compromise is possible then I suppose a vote or RFC will be necessary. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, except that "the article" is actually female circumcision. Or perhaps that should be renamed "Male Genital Cutting." When sources are so inconsistent it is apparently difficult to come up with a solution. Blackworm (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note, this is still being editwarred (I'll note: reverted by DCGeist and DocKino, multiple times each), and there has been no response from DCGeist,[2] and no further comment at all from DocKino,[3] who together are the only apparent supporters of this month-old text described as an "extended period,"[4] and opposed by, apparently, many times more editors. Note again that reversion is not a substitute for discussion, nor consensus. I suggest this be RfC'd ASAP. In the meantime, perhaps page protection should be considered. Blackworm (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What more "response" are you seeking? Extensive arguments have been made on both sides, and those seeking to exclude the item have not been able to achieve the necessary consensus.(I observe that in addition to myself and DocKino, Student7 and PL290 have also entered arguments hardly favorable to exclusion.) As for page protection...really? But what if the wrong version is protected?!?!—DCGeist (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to address your arguments, as I did in my most recent such post 05:47, 25 August 2010, in the section above. As I've stated, I don't think a month without opposition is a basis for your reverting over and over to keep the article with this material, considering how many editors are opposed, and considering the sources that have been brought. But I'll support an RfC or other dispute resolution. Further, if you're not willing to discuss it, you shouldn't be reverting it, per WP:CONSENSUS policy, which states: "When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages." Blackworm (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As Geometry Guy has demonstrated, there is a large and important class of words and phrases (hereafter, simply "words") that have both euphemistic and non-euphemistic usages (e.g., issue, ethnic cleansing). It enhances the effectiveness of our guidance to include such words as "words to watch" along with words that lend themselves almost exclusively to euphemistic use (e.g., make love, passed away).

Female circumcision is a significant example of the first class aforementioned. I understand that some political activists may advocate that it never be used; I understand that some editors here may regard that position as tendentious and ahistorical. I truly don't care much about that point either way. The fact is that many high-quality sources identify it as a euphemistic substitute for straightforward, graphic descriptions that many people find most unpleasant. I happen to believe that there are certain contexts—usually historical or both technical and medical—in which the term's use is not especially euphemistic. I also happen to believe that, given the nature of a general-interest encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, at almost any place where the term is likely to be used here it would likely, and inappropriately, be used as a euphemism. That makes it a good example for the subsection. The additional fact that, aside from its euphemistic character, it is also often used most imprecisely, as I detailed most explicitly earlier in this thread, makes it a very good example for the subsection. The additional fact that it deals with a very important human issue—the very fact that evidently scares some editors off—makes it memorable and prompts greater awareness of and reflection on the whole issue of euphemism and its avoidance. That makes it an excellent example for the subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist, I do accept that your reverts are not an expression of your own POV, that you want to include this example because you believe it is good (though I'm still not sure what more precise term you believe it is a euphemism for). But given that both phrases, female circumcision and genital mutilation, are obviously controversial and given that this example clearly doesn't have consensus, is there not some other excellent example that would satisfy you? Why does it have to be this particular one? Or would you be satisfied, as a compromise, if female circumcision and genital mutilation were both included under the contentious labels heading? There is abundant recent source material that would support inclusion of both words here. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) You imply that a word is a euphemism only if its role is to substitute for a "more precise" generic term (like, for instance, the way passed away is a euphemism for died). But a word may also be a euphemism if its role is to substitute for a range of specific (case-by-case) descriptions that can vary widely in their details but are uniformly (or nearly uniformly) far more unpleasant than the euphemistic term. Female circumcision falls into this category. As a side note: Though I'm not a particular fan of either term, in most contexts likely to arise here, female genital cutting and female genital mutilation, while not more precise surgically than female circumcision, are less euphemistic.

(2) The idea of adding female circumcision/female genital mutilation to Contentious labels is an intriguing one. There is something of the pairing that echoes and expands on the principles raised by freedom fighter/terrorist in a potentially productive way. Let's see how other people respond to that idea.—DCGeist (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist, this is a repetition of prior arguments shown to be false by sources. Read these Encyclopedia Britannica pages: [5] and [6] for example. The phrase is "circumcision of the female," which, if you look up the word "circumcision," makes perfect sense in English. We cannot allow activist attempts to dictate new "correct" and "incorrect" language to us to influence our choice of language; that violates WP:NPOV. Your attempts to promote "greater awareness" and "avoidance" of terms avoided by one particular group of activists is just that -- Wiki-activism. Promoting social change through the restriction and reinterpretation of language. We should report on those activist attempts, we cannot duplicate them. If "female circumcision" or "circumcision of the female" is good enough for Britannica it's good enough for us. Blackworm (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) I'm not aware that I've made any argument that has been "shown to be false by sources." You'll have to be much more precise.

(2) You have misread me—I assume your misreading occurred in good faith. I am not interested, as you claim I am, in "promot[ing] 'greater awareness' and 'avoidance' of terms avoided by one particular group of activists." I am interested in promoting greater awareness and avoidance of euphemisms in general on Wikipedia. That is part of the fundamental guidance offered by this page. I favor a selection of example terms that makes the guidance as strong, as memorable, as effective as possible.

(3) You seem to be oblivious to the fact that within any language usage norms are constantly in flux. Words that once were used in polite company are now regarded as deeply offensive; terms once considered slang are now perfectly acceptable in formal writing. Sometimes those shifts are driven consciously and politically—that doesn't make the shift any more or less "valid" as far as we are concerned. The fact is that the shift has happened. Female circumcision is now widely recognized and described as a euphemism by high-quality sources. I'm sorry that fact makes you sad, but it is what it is.

(4) Your repeated references to Britannica are most underwhelming. We strive to surpass Britannica in every regard, not echo it.—DCGeist (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Your assertion that "female circumcision" is "imprecise" is false, as shown by sources on that page indicating that is it either synonymous with or describes a subset of procedures referred to by other terms you prefer. You also fail to source your arguments, against sourced arguments.

(2) I believe you care only about this particular example, and I come to that conclusion specifically because the issue is hotly disputed elsewhere in Wikipedia, and because you have made no effort to suggest an alternate phrase which illustrates the point you are trying to make without drawing such strong opposition. I also note your complete dismissal of others' concerns, and multiple reversions without addressing opposing arguments -- trademarks of supporters of the POV that "female circumcision" is unacceptable to state as a valid phrase in Wikipedia despite its ubiquitous presence in sources.

(3) Your statement is again disproved by the most cursory searches of recent reliable sources, which freely use the phrases "male circumcision" and "female circumcision."

(4) Surpass it in POV, we do. Blackworm (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is evident that you are a highly politicized advocate on this issue and should bow out, immediately, from this discussion of general lexical matters.—DCGeist (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you responded to the points made, and discussed the edit. I believe you have discussed the topic quite a bit more than I here. My arguments are based in lexicographic and other tertiary, secondary, and primary sources that use the term. Yours seem based in personal opinion about the parallels drawn from some specific forms of female circumcision to common forms of male circumcision ("the removal of the clitoris, the effects of which go far beyond the removal of the foreskin"), other completely unsourced statements, and personal attacks and incivility ("I'm sorry that fact makes you sad"). Blackworm (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As a further note this edit summary is completely wrong: "as you have been told and shown many times now, the status quo is inclusion; if you can't forge a consensus to remove, you'll just have to suffer its continuing presence". There is no status quo-wins-by-default rule, even if we could decide what the status quo is, and I don't think that's as clear as DCGeist believes. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Completely wrong"? Well! I think I understand—that's the grade-inflation version of "I disagree".—DCGeist (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that there's an I-win-by-default rule is repeated all over Wikipedia talk pages by lots of editors. I don't mean that to sound personal but the job now is to look for consensus. The question of which of the two versions was the original has no impact on the final version. Regarding your two points: (1)I do indeed believe that a euphemism is a term that substitutes for a more precise term and not just an alternative to a detailed decription. After all, no one would claim that the phrase "cataract surgery" is a euphemism for an account of an operation to remove a cataract. What is special about this kind of surgery, apart from the existence of groups that advocate a more emotive term? The other reason I keep asking "what more precise term?" is, if you look at the article, the sub-heading reads "Euphemisms" but the heading reads "Expressions that lack precision". (2) Let's not lose sight of this, it'd be nice to get this sorted out and have the protection lifted. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone sitting on the fence with regard to this issue, but skeptical as to whether this is a good exemplar, I found DCGeist's argument above (that it is a good exemplar) quite persuasive. However, I'm not yet persuaded, and my hesitation raises another general issue. Just as some words have both euphemistic and non-euphemistic usages, it is also not necessarily the case that euphemisms and euphemistic usages are unencyclopedic. For example, the words "restroom", "WC (water closet)" and "lavatory" are all euphemistic, but so too is "toilet" at root. For better or worse, sometimes euphemisms just become an accepted way to communicate a specific idea. Even "affliction" is in some ways a euphemism for "pain or illness".

In the present context, authors such as Nahid Toubia who describe "female circumcision" as euphemistic, also use it descriptively in other articles without comment: that is currently the way to communicate effectively what one is talking about. "Genital mutilation" could include even more extreme acts of violence and/or bodily harm than those covered by cultural practices, and "genital cutting" provides no useful information: to some readers it may even include self-harm.

However well-intentioned, it is not Wikipedia's role to lead the way. We can only follow reliable sources.

All the other exemplars of euphemisms and euphemistic usages have clear and well-justified substitutes. This one does not. Words to Watch is not the one answer to these thorny questions, as it is a style guideline: well-intentioned editors need this page to find encyclopedic ways to express the content of the source material they use; I am unconvinced that this guideline provides them with an effective answer in the case of "female circumcision". If we are to include such phrases as exemplars, then we should provide readers with more than one such, and state explicitly that it isn't easy to negotiate the maze of language. I'm not convinced we can do that without encouraging original research. Geometry guy 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with nearly all of that. The point of this page is that there are some expressions that aren't very encyclopedic, not that sometimes we can give insufficient detail about something (that's surely something for WP:WEIGHT). As the discussion seems to be dying down, and as I think female circumcision v. genital mutilation complements the terrorist/freedom fighter example rather well, I think I'll wait for the edit protection to expire and depending on any developments by then, I'll add both examples to that section. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If we include one, we should include all other phrases used by many people when dicussing an issue and labeled as "inappropriate," "offensive," or "euphemistic" by the advocates on one side of an issue. Of course, that won't happen. We will have sacrificed NPOV -- and for what, exactly? Avoiding offending those for whom the phrase "female circumcision" is offensive or "misleading," or "imprecise," and implicitly labeling all the sources that use it "wrong." "To be avoided." That would be a terrible outcome; the complete antithesis of WP:NPOV, especially as this example is being pushed in specifically because of advocacy, unlike any of the other phrases. Blackworm (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's clear to me that the reason this example was included was that some people don't like the practice of female circumcision and think Wikipedia should find a gratuitously emotive term to describe it. To say that the reason for inclusion is that it's possible to use a detailed descriptive expression doesn't make sense to me: that's true, in certain circumstances, of almost any word in the English language. I also think the people arguing for its inclusion are contradicting themselves ("this is an excellent example of a euphemism" v. "maybe there are problems with this example but the sources say it's a euphemism so we must treat it as that"). Blackworm, unlike you I don't have a problem with mentioning on this page that the use of some words is contentious (that is undoubtedly the case with here) which can be done without mentioning every conceivably contentious word. But such expressions belong under Contentious labels. I do object to this being placed on a list of ugly, unencyclopedic circumlocutions along with "passed away" and "living with cancer", which will have the effect of discouraging its use. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have a problem with mentioning its use as contentious because it is much less contentious than other phrases like "male genital cutting" and "male genital mutilation," which are already (and perhaps more justifiably) almost completely denied a place in Wikipedia, being removed on sight in favour of more specific terms like "male circumcision." The phrase "female circumcision," appears in Wikipedia much more prominently, probably due to its high presence in sources, and therefore that question does not seem as clear-cut or resolved, as policy must be. That's why it doesn't make sense to include it here as an example, and DCGeist's apparent requirement that this specific example is first and foremost necessary is not justified. A consensus that a phrase is inappropriate for general use or merits extreme caution in Wikipedia should be the threshold in both those lists, especially as policy such as WP:NPOV still directs the reader here with discouraging language ("Details about particular terms can be found at words to avoid"). It is still discouraging with this page's new title, "words to watch." No one likes their edits "watched" in that way so they will avoid the terms, and others happen to have a POV can confidently and easily change the terms, citing this guideline. I agree that it is more acceptable when both competing terms are listed, with no indication implied or otherwise that one term is preferred. It would serve to watch gratuitous changes in terminology by editors forwarding a specific POV.

The word "terminated a pregnancy" is considered by some to be a contentious euphemism for "killed a fetus", for example. But we aren't going to include that here. Why not? There are many more sources referring to euphemistic language surrounding abortion than there are for human genital cutting and excision. Should we begin listing those euphemisms here, despite our using them? That's why the argument in favour of including "female circumcision" on this page fails; the language used by sources on a disputed topic is relevant and should be used in proportion to its prominence in the sources, and if contentious, the dispute mentioned in the articles on the topic. Putting the phrase on these lists amounts to a Wikipedia-wide declaration of what is and isn't NPOV, and should be reserved for the most prohibited phrases (e.g., perhaps "male genital mutilation", a phrase that doesn't exist in the English Wikipedia to my knowledge other than to redirect to "genital modification and mutilation," and even the existence of that redirect is opposed) and most puffy, infantile or crude euphemisms having wide consensus (e.g., "with child"). Blackworm (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since "circumcision" described a religious rite and, later, a medical procedure, it doesn't seem accurate to call a clitorectomy a "circumcision." Males lost no function in their procedure. Women definitely lose sensation. Whatever the Africans called it, it wasn't "circumcision" since they lacked the social context. Granted that it probably wasn't "mutilation" either. What is wrong with calling it clitorectomy? That is what it is. Student7 (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditional African spirituality doesn't do the spiritual/secular split that Western theology does, so imposing your artificial Western distinction between a "religious rite" and a "non-religious rite" on an African practice is probably inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[Late reply.] So is the original research stating that circumcised males lose no "function." Please see Foreskin#Functions. Unfortunately the entire debate on the content of circumcision articles is saturated with this kind of WP:OR and disputed claims being cited as fact. Blackworm (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with calling it clitorectomy, or clitoridectomy, is that it means something completely different from female circumcision and is wrong. The former means removal of the clitoris, sometimes for medical reasons, while the latter is the removal or alteration ("mutilation") of parts of the genitals in any of a number of ways that may or may not include clitoridectomy but are usually not limited to that. That is why there are two different articles. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, but currently think that the guideline is better off without this particular item. We're trying to illustrate the kinds of terms that require extra attention, not to canonize certain terms as being "right" or "wrong". I think including it will confuse all the editors who aren't familiar with the controversy, and may tend to bias discussions at a small number of articles in an undesirably WP:GAMING way. Also, it's probably WP:CREEPy.

I do think this section needs work. For example, 'people with blindness' is awkward, but not really a euphemism. 'Visually impaired person', whenever it is applied to a person with total blindness, is a euphemism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article to reflect the state of the discussion here. This was promptly reverted, again, by the user who was blocked for WP:3RR [7] in this very dispute. And this without discussion, or addressing the arguments of those responding here. What can be done? Blackworm (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty poor behaviour. The discussion over the last few days has obviously moved in favour of removal. DCGeist chose not to participate. A majority of editors agrees this should be removed. Consensus doesn't mean one editor gets a veto. DCGeist ought to explain his objections on the talk page not in the edit comments. Next stage - there's no point in an RFC when there's no shortage of comments. A vote perhaps? As an interim measure, I'm moving it to the contentious terms section along with the rival term. Blackworm, I understand you're not happy about that (neither am I) but I hope a clearer consensus will emerge; at least it's no longer a blatant attempt to influence whose favoured term is used. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit seems to be a reasonable compromise for now. The two terms parallel the pair "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" rather well, except that they are not really labels in the same way. The common ground here is instead "Value-laden terms". This suggests broadening the scope of the section, and perhaps splitting it into "labels" and and "words which promote a viewpoint". I suggest opening a new section to discuss it: the current compromise indicates potential improvements to the guideline, which is a much better position to be in than arguing as to what are good examples of euphemisms! Geometry guy 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As 188.221 suspects, I'm not overjoyed by this edit. One problem that springs to mind is that "genital mutilation" is gender neutral while "female circumcision" is gendered, so it isn't clear they're talking about two sides of the same dispute. We have an article called genital modification and mutilation, which uses this "value-laden" term (which presumably means non-NPOV) in the title. Also, "female genital cutting" is arguably as value-laden, as it is the advocates' preferred term when facing people who call it "female circumcision," and also since it is used in Wikipedia to include some procedures that do not involve any cutting. I maintain none of these terms belong here on WP:Words to avoid. But I will agree that it is an improvement, and I'm pleased that many who are leaning toward my preferred edit are bending over backwards to attempt to find a compromise. Thanks for that; DCGeist and DocKino deserve the consideration. Blackworm (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there's plenty of evidence for controversy for the terms "male genital mutilation", "female genital mutilation" and "female circumcision". I don't think this exists for "male circumcision" or plain "circumcision". If we were to exclude terms from the "Contentious labels" section simply on the grounds that they may be POV, or indeed contentious, it would be impossible to give any examples at all. So I don't mind the article as it stands. It just looks pointy. My view really is that if lots of people object to a particular example on these pages it might as well be replaced with a different one. I don't understand the motives of those users who are so attached to "female circumcision", unless they wish to nudge people towards particular linguistic choices. Does "female circumcision" make a point that no other example could possibly make? If so, it is not a very useful example given that examples should surely preclude common mistakes and have lots of parallels. It not, why not change it? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, "female circumcision" is currently in the guideline. What is our consensus on this? CycloneGU (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It (short phrases are words on this page) may be worthy of mention as a word to watch, but may not be a good exemplar for a class of words to watch. Geometry guy 22:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But, however

Thoughts on whether we want to add this under "Expressions of doubt"?

But and however sometimes imply that what came before was inaccurate or irrelevant.

- Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps not there, or even Editorializing, but a new Unsupported implications or somesuch? When misused, typically to open a sentence, those two imply some connection with the previous sentence that is in fact unjustified (which has wider possibilities than only that of undermining the previous sentence). PL290 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No preference here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I recall making the same or similar suggestion a while ago. The consensus here was that "but" and "however" need to be watched because it can be a form of editorializing. patsw (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a small paragraph treating this phenomenon as a subset of editorializing. Let's see how it sits there. PL290 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words template link?

In the Weasel Words section, can we include a link to the template page? It seems a bit more convenient with it. Being a relatively new Wikipedia user, I wasn't sure what to type into the search box. Atomforyou (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to templates for tagging articles, the footnote in that section already provides those links. PL290 (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking to essays

Why is it such a problem? And besides, Wikipedia:Writing better articles is more than just an essay, it's important and widely followed guidance that has direct relevance to this page. -- œ^™ 04:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite accurate. This is a guideline and Writing better articles is an essay. Any number of essays—which, however "important" or "widely followed", have only the status of individual opinion—are plausibly relevant to this guideline. I believe it is outside the scope of this or any guideline to determine which essays are sufficiently "important" to be linked to and which are not. If Writing better articles is as important and widely followed as you say, you should have no problem getting it promoted to guideline status. Once you succeed in that endeavor, I will be the first to support a link to it from this guideline.—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But I still don't see the problem of simply linking to it, I still see it as an improvement to this page. So what if it's an essay? Just by linking to it here doesn't necessarily give it any official status, it's just a helpful link for new users wanting to learn more. It serves a useful purpose and improves Wikipedia by guiding new users towards other relevant pages that provide good instruction. Even if they're (temporarily) led to believe that just because it's linked from an 'official' page that it's also 'official' and should be faithfully adhered to, is that really a bad thing? Sooner or later they'll understand it's just an essay but until then they will have learned many helpful skills and community norms. -- œ^™ 06:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Dan on this one. As you (OE) are aware from our discussion in the ongoing RfC on shortcuts masking essay status, in my judgement we need to put a few things straight when it comes to linking to essays. And this is another of them. I have occasionally noticed guidelines and even policies that link to essays, and, contrary to your view that it "doesn't necessarily give it any official status", I would say that's precisely what it does. We should absolutely avoid doing that. Any essay considered worthy of such a link should first be "officially sanctioned" by attaining guideline status itself. PL290 (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(revised after ec) Just following up on PL's point, the claim that Writing better articles represents "community norms" appears to be baseless. If that page, which was created almost six years ago, truly represented "community norms," it would be (or about to become) a guideline. That's an essential and inescapable difference between a guideline and an essay: the former has been demonstrated by community action to represent community norms, the latter has not.—DCGeist (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand and respect both of your positions on the subject, but I still maintain that simply linking to certain 'essays' (however we define that term..) is not harmful to the project. We do our aspiring future editors a great disservice by disapproving of, and not making accessible, as much supplementary educational material as possible, and we truly do not give them much credit by assuming they'll just ignore the prominent 'essay' tag at the top and irrationally use that information to browbeat us indefinitely. A page such as WP:WBA simply relates good editing practices (read it! all it does is restate what's already in the policies/guidelines anyway!) and I would argue that a page that's almost 6 years old untouched is indeed community norms, and the only reason it's not 'legitimized' is because it's happy being an essay! -- œ^™ 13:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Better than successful

If you need a quick word thats not puffery that implies someone's career or effort was more significant or better than just 'successful' what should be used? The example given - that a descriptions of some quote should be used - doesnt always work. A word like 'brilliant' or 'outstanding' gets tagged and removed even though there's no argument with the actual statement. Any suggestions? Mdw0 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians forget that there are certain contexts in which a "quick word" of laudatory content is appropriate and acceptable—most frequently, article lead sections that summarize sourced main text content and the main texts of overview articles that must be written in tightly phrased summary style. Still, even in such a context, words like "brilliant" and "outstanding" are generally not advisable, unless they are directly quoted. Words like "acclaimed" or "celebrated" or "notable" are better, as acclaim and celebration and public noting can be sourced and cited. Here's a sly one: "impressive". If you can source an impression...on anyone, you can defend "impressive".—DCGeist (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though 'impressive' screams 'I'm subjective'... I think celebrated works, though. Thanks. Mdw0 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In some cases the only solution is an attitude correction of those who go around removing "problematic" words from articles they don't understand. I don't know if that's your problem because I haven't looked. Stylistic advice of the form "I think it might be a good idea not to overuse X in the specific context Y" often starts a huge telephone game that typically ends in "X must not be used, except for very few contexts in which it cannot possibly be avoided". This would be detrimental to the language if good writers followed this kind of advice. Fortunately they ignore it, even though some of them are not aware of the fact.

"Successful" is often poor style; it's better to show rather than tell. But encyclopedias are special, and sometimes "successful" is the only word with which we can sensibly and appropriately summarise the reliable sources. We shouldn't make things up that aren't explicit in a source, or give undue weight to a minor aspect, just to say something more specific. Hans Adler 10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcision

I've just removed genital mutilation and female circumcision, because they jumped out at me as expressions we shouldn't be warning about. But now I see there has been quite an extensive discussion about this, so I should have posted here before removing them. My apologies. If there's consensus to include them I don't mind if they're restored. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Making love

This sentence should be removed: "Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous."

It's factually wrong to suggest that "make love" is a euphemism; the expression is understood to mean having sex, and it isn't intended to deny or obscure what it refers to, which is the point of a euphemism. I don't know what calling it "presumptuous" is supposed to mean. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is most definitely often intended to obscure the physicality of the act to which it almost invariably refers in contemporary usage. Its undeniably euphemistic nature in present-day English is founded in the fact that for centuries worth of the English language, "making love" was not a synonym for the sex act but primarily a synonym for wooing and courtship. Calling it "presumptuous" means that it ascribes the subjective sentiment of love to the objective fact of coitus when the former may be unverifiable.—DCGeist (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting your information from about this; so far as I know, it's not a euphemism (in the proper sense of the word) in modern English. Maybe people occasionally use it that way, but not normally. I would have thought that it was appropriate in cases where the sex occurs in a romantic context - that's hardly "presumptuous". I don't plan to change the guideline without agreement from other editors. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a presumptuous euphemism. Its a euphemism because its used in places where the word sex might be offensive. Thats a fact. The presuming is that the context is romantic. The presuming is also that any particular act between people who love each other is necessarily more than sex. In any case, to use 'making love' in a Wikipedia you'd need written confirmation from all parties involved that the act was definitely transcendant and not a lustful hump. Good luck with that. Mdw0 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

People use the expression for all kinds of reasons. Maybe just because it's more poetic, for example. It would be normally understood to include coitus, so it isn't a euphemism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In an article about Pride and Prejudice, saying that Mr. Collins makes love to Elizabeth is not a euphemism at all and is in fact the stylistically best way to convey a specific meaning that has nothing to do with sex. Of course one needs to be careful when using it, so it cannot be misunderstood as being about sex. Hans Adler 10:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well...not even. This is the 21st century, not the early 19th, when the brilliant, outstanding Jane Austen wrote P&P. One simply should not use the phrase in a modern encyclopedia. It is now a euphemism for sex. It is thus inappropriate here.—DCGeist (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of our featured article writers are able to write brilliant prose that captures the atmosphere of the article topic. That is perfectly appropriate and should be encouraged, not discouraged. We don't have to make sub-standard prose the explicit target. We should be satisfied with the fact that in most cases we get there automatically with no effort at all. Hans Adler 10:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We ARE encouraging it. Anyone using 'making love' in an encyclopedic article is NOT writing brilliant prose. Mdw0 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Virtuoso puffery

I think the term virtuoso is being outrageously overused as a peacock term to describe prominent classical musicians. Almost all widely known classical musician gets described as a virtuoso in their Wikipedia article. This is in my opinion a very bad case of widespread puffery. I think virtuoso should be used about great musicians to the extent in Wikipedia article you would use the term "genius" about great thinkers or scientist (which is just about never). I have already had this point taken up on WP:Classical music[8], and have brought it here to get it put on the list of peacock terms to watch so that this egregious practice can be stopped once and for all.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of this term seems to be too high. The equivalent is most certainly not with genius. Dictionaries say a virtuoso is a talented player with excellent musical technique. Thats not genius by a long shot. If the label isnt that much of an accolade, then how can it be puffery? And yes, you'd expect most widely known musicians to have excellent musical technique and therefore be referred to as a virtuoso. I just had a glance through the Wikipedia's virtuoso article (I know Wikipedia cant be used as a reference but this isnt an edit in an article its a note in a discussion) and it says the term has been ridiculously bastardised since the 18th century, so its hardly a fault of Wikipedia's. Mdw0 (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's really not the point how inclusive this description might be. The point is that the term is completely unquantifiable. There is no criteria to define whether or not someone is a virtuoso. Therefore it is a peacock term. I want it listed here, because it is being so widely used on Wikipedia by now that it is really starting becoming a problem. It's dragging down the whole project, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on verifiable material. And it really doesn't matter if the term virtuoso is already being overused outside of Wikipedia. They are not supposed to adhere to the same kind of standards that Wikipedia is.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a logical line - just because there aren't defined rules as to virtuosity doesnt mean the term is automatically a peacock term. If the term only means 'quite competant' then by definition it CANT be a peacock term. Mdw0 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, to call someone a "virtuoso" is quite similar to saying the person is a "great/remarkable/outstanding musician". And all those are mentioned as examples of peacock terms. I don't see why articles can't just use the word "professional", which is a quantifiable and verifiable term. Any distinction beyond that should in my opinion be expressed either in the form of achievements or quoted opinions. TheFreeloader (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We've got a semantic argument here - I think you might need to dig up a few concrete definitions that indicate the meaning of virtuoso that supports your argument for the ban. Mdw0 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it is a "descriptive" noun. Descriptive words should almost always be omitted. Why do I have to say that Einstein was a genius? Isn't that obvious to a reader? Why haven't I enhanced the article to reflect his genius? Usually these words are substitutes for otherwise poor articles. I shouldn't have to tell a reader the level of performance of anybody. They should be able to figure it out from the credentials I supply. If I have failed to supply credentials, then I have failed as an editor and can't make it up with a (sorry) peacock term. This is why Wikipolicies aren't jammed with precise meanings for various nouns and adjectives, other than notable. We only need the one: notable.

A notable musician has performed in many places that a reader would recognize. S/he is a professional, paid to play. A "concert in Milan" isn't enough. Upcoming musicians give free performances in Milan on their tour of Europe for which they pay! It's tough getting to the top in music. I have extremely talented nieces who never make a mistake and have been chosen for regional orchestras and are invited to play (no money!). Alas, as proud as I am of them, they are not (yet?) virtuosos. Mercifully, that is not their goal in life. Student7 (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was not the one who started the discussion about the meaning of the word. But alright then. Merriam-Webster says a virtuoso is: "one who excels in the technique of an art; especially a highly skilled musical performer (as on the violin)" [9]. Oxford Dictionary says a virtuoso is: "a person highly skilled in music or another artistic pursuit"[10]. And dictionary.com says a virtuoso is: "a person who excels in musical technique or execution."[11]. All of these I find quite close to saying virtuoso means a "great/excellent/outstanding/remarkable musician". And I would definitely say the word "virtuoso" is in pretty much all instances where it is used to describe musicians in Wikipedia article in accordance with the definition on this page of a peacock term as "Words [...] used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information."TheFreeloader (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it still your position that 'Highly skilled' or 'excels in technique' is the same as claiming 'genius?' We're talking about the minimum standard of notability here. In fact, its probbaly the opposite of puffery in that anyone who ISNT a virtuoso probably doesnt deserve a Wikipedia article. Mdw0 (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I would still says virtuoso is in modern usage pretty close to meaning a "musical genius". I don't see what your argument about minimum standard of notability has to do with this. "Famous" is also mentioned as a peacock term on this page, and I would say that anyone with their own Wikipedia must be famous to some degree. The same with "great", that could be seen just as much as a "minimum standard" for people in many fields to have a Wikipedia article. It's a peacock term as it tries to promote the subject of an article with an unquantifiable term. Also "notable", the very word that Wikipedia sets as its "minimum standard" for inclusion into the encyclopedia (WP:Notability), is mentioned here as an example of a peacock term. This to me indicates very clearly that just because a term might, by some's definition, describe almost anyone in Wikipedia does not mean that it can not be a peacock term. TheFreeloader (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentalist

Why is "Fundamentalist" on the list? I don't think that "fundamentalists" consider themselves abused when this term is used. What is wrong with it? If it has been discussed, maybe someone can point me to it, rather than repeat it just for my sake. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of them do. See Fundamentalism#Controversy_over_use_of_the_term.

Additionally, at least within Christianity, many people who are labeled by others as "fundamenalists" are actually "modernists" who do not subscribe to the five fundamentals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One could claim

I've seen this phrase used in Demographics of Lebanon. Is usage of this phrase legit in WP? TFighterPilot (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No it's not acceptable and it isn't on multiple levels. First because it is weasel words, the claim needs to be attributed to someone. Second because it refers to a religious community as a sect (see: WP:LABEL). And finally if there was reference to someone making that claim, it would be better to just use said as it does not imply that the statement may be wrong. TheFreeloader (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Except in a quote, it's not a phrase you would expect to see in any article. Apart from its unencyclopedic tone, an unsubstantiated assertion of that kind is simply original research. The phrase needs no special mention in this guideline. PL290 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

One might claim it is not legit!  :) Student7 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

If "ethnic cleansing" is an euphemism what is it an euphemism for? This may be a new phrase but it is one that has both a UN definition and has been used cases taken by the ICTY, the ICJ and the ECHR. It has a perfectly clear definition "Ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)"

Also if "collateral damage" is an euphemism what is it an euphemism for? It too has a precise meaning it is the "incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment" which occur during attacks against military objectives. Whether that collateral damage is a war crime or not depends if it breaches what is know in International Humanitarian Law of the military principle known as proportionality -- PBS (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As the page states, ethnic cleansing may be used properly in certain contexts; however, it is often used as a euphemism for genocide—that euphemistic usage is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Collateral damage is often used as a euphemism for civilian casualties—that euphemistic usage is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that a "precise meaning" may be identified for it is not probative—it is a euphemism when it used to describe the deaths of civilians: a relatively "agreeable or inoffensive expression substituted for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant."—DCGeist (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant difference betwen the two - genocide implies the killing of an entire ethnic group. Ethnic cleansing means removing them from a particular area, whether by killing or by other means. Collateral damage implies its an accident, but ethnic cleansing is deliberate policy. Certainly if genocide is the aim or means then genocide should be used, but if the aims regard territory and the means are broader, then genocide is excessive and inaccurate. The euphemistic part is the 'cleansing' that the area is somehow better off if the ethnic group are removed, and is only used because of a lack of a credible alternative. Mdw0 (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to take sides, but it was my understanding that genocide also included transporting a definable group of people from their normal homeland. This was done to the Armenians, for example, who mostly died as the result of bungled transporting (though the transporters might not have shed tears at their plight). This does not agree with the Wikipedia article. I think it does agree with the International definition, however. In other words, "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" appear to be the same, if my definition is accepted (which I believe is the correct one). Student7 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because some use ethnic cleansing when they mean genocide (and vice versa) does not mean that ethnic cleansing is an euphemism of genocide, both have precise meanings. Who says that ethnic cleansing is an euphemism of genocide? Collateral damage has a precise military meaning, who says it is used to mask civilian causalities as that is precisely what it means "incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment" So who is it that is saying that ethnic cleansing is an euphemism of genocide and that collateral damage as a mask for civilian casualties? -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Student7 you need to read the ECHR explanation for the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing you will find their legal opinion quoted in the Bosnian Genocide Case also the introduction to ethnic cleansing explains the difference from the POV of a social scientist. --PBS (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a person with no particular knowledge of the formal legal definitions, it seems to me that the plain English difference is this:

• Ethnic cleansing: It's okay for the other people to exist—just not here. See "During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, 'Up! Leave my people, you and the Israelites! Go, worship the LORD as you have requested. Take your flocks and herds, as you have said, and go!'" (Book of Exodus 12)
• Genocide: The other people shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere. See "They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword." (Book of Joshua 6)

The problem is that these two things frequently happen together: People commit genocide as a means of achieving an ethnically cleansed society. So editors might choose one term, when IMO they ought to be using (and sourcing) both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course they should source their usage. See for example this entry in Ethnic cleansing:

• In December 2008 200 Turkish intellectuals and academics issued an apology for the ethnic cleansing of Armenians during World War I, an event that most Western historians view as amounting to a genocide (Birch, Nichola (15 December 2008). "Turkish academics in apology to Armenians". The Independent.)

it is quite possible for different groups academics to hold different view on such an issue, but the usage of one term or the other is specific (with their own definitions) the term "ethnic cleansing" is no more an euphemism for "genocide" than "genocide" is for "ethnic cleansing". I think WhatamIdoing you would find reading the Bosnian Genocide article interesting, as it helps to explain why the Srebrenica Massacre is described as a genocide and not ethnic cleansing (while other gruesome events in that war are described in court as ethnic cleansing, (for which multiple crimes other than genocide were committed)). The issues revolves around the legal definition of genocide which has to do with the intent of the perpetrators, not the outcome of the event. -- PBS (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DocKino please explain this comment in the edit history 12:36, 8 November 2010 DocKino (Revert--there is absolutely no consensus for that change, and the edit summary makes clear that you do not understand what a euphemism is.)

What is it in "See talk page. ethnic cleansing is not an euphemism genocide and collateral damage does not mask civilian casualties" that indicates that I do not understand what an euphemism is? -- PBS (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I basically agree with you. But the question here is really, do we actually see editors (either through ignorance or squeamishness) (ab)using the term "ethnic cleansing" in situations when they ought to be using the accurate term "genocide"?

I'll give you an example: Editors moderately often use developmental disability when they specifically mean the particular form of congenital intellectual disability that is called mental retardation in medical publications. The two terms are definitely not synonymous, and conflation of the two enrages some people with non-intellectual developmental disabilities (like cleft palate).

So DD isn't properly a euphemism for MR -- but editors do use it that way. Do you think that the same thing happens with this pair of terms? Do you think that editors are making the mistake of using "ethnic cleansing" when they ought to use "genocide" (or the other way around)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything it is the other way round. Ethnic cleansing almost always involves crimes against humanity, the trouble is as "Dr Larissa van den Herik, an assistant professor in public international law at Leiden University, notes too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes. 'Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma,' she said. This preoccupation with genocide is particularly prevalent in the former Yugoslavia, she said. 'There, if you are a victim of genocide, does that mean you a higher status of victim?' she asked." (Tosh, Caroline Genocide Acquittal Provokes Legal Debat, TU No 491, Institute for War & Peace Reporting 2 March 2007.)

An example of this political use of genocide was seen with the UN deceleration that Sabra and Shatila massacre was a genocide.

At a stylistic level it was pointed out in a completely different conversation that that British papers use "soccer" in their bylines because it scans better and gives more punch to the byline, genocide can be used in the same way. We see the same with article names. For example we have an article called Bosnian Genocide but no one has yet written the badly needed article Ethnic cleaning in Bosnia. But having said that this is not because genocide is being used as an euphemism for ethnic cleansing it is being used either as a political polemic or because the person using it does not realise that it has a specific meaning (in which case non biased sources usually correct this).

This issue is also muddied because genocide scholars use a range of meanings (see genocide definitions) and see for example the "Genocide debate" in Australia for an example of how this plays out in an active debate.

What this comes down to is that this subject is far to broad and complex to be addressed in terms of euphemism in a guideline such as this. It is nothing like the use of "passed away" for died or as the OED puts it "That figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended." -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm hearing from this is that both of these terms are:

1. sometimes incorrectly used, and
2. when they are used incorrectly, it is sometimes (but definitely not always) motivated by a desire to replace the accurate word with a term that is (according to the speaker, who may be ignorant of the legal definitions) less offensive/less inflammatory/less politically damaging (or, alternatively, more offensive/more polemical/more politically damaging, if you're on the other side of the aisle).

Does that sound like a fair description of the situation to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all instances, I can only talk about articles I monitor. I do not know of any cases where people use the incorrect term as an euphemism. What I do see is the use as a form of OR. Something nasty happened to a group resulting in the deaths of many of them. It must have been a genocide. Perhaps the best example of this is the massive loss of life in the Congo Free State. This ghastly episode had been largely forgotten until Adam Hochschild published his book -- this is shown by R. J. Rummel recalculation of colonial democide for European colonizers which before he knew about the Congo Free State stood at 870,000 the Congo Free State alone added 10,000,000 to that figure.[12] However much to the surprise of well meaning editors who add this mass killing to the genocides in history article or other related articles, Hochschild has written "no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different".[13] -- -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 11 November (UTC)

So you think that the use of the word does bear watching, but because of NOR violations, not because of euphemistic misuse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So can you find a different section on this page that these terms can be listed in?

I think it's valuable to have these terms listed somewhere on this page, so that editors are aware that they should be watched. I don't care whether they're listed under "Euphemisms". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

These words are neither "euphemisms" or "Expressions that lack precision" so they do not belong in the section in which they have been placed. There are dozens of expressions like genocide, are subject to use to introduce a bias eg massacre and slaughter, and terrorist, terror bombing etc. Whether there needs to be a section on the use of words an phrases which have precise meanings and are abused is another issue. But "ethnic cleansing" is not an euphemism for genocide. However as the ECHR has stated "ethnic cleansing" may encompass the crime of genocide in some circumstances and the ICTY highlighted that forcible deportation of women and children was a component in the Srebrenica genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Collateral damage

From the history of the article "SlimVirgin (two people have objected, so pls discuss further)" What are your objections? -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to explain your objections, as you're the one who wants to removed the material. Are you saying "collateral damage," for example, is not a euphemism? Also, as was explained above, it's the use of these terms as euphemisms that is referred to here, not their use in general. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I have already explain it in detail, is there anything I have written above that needs more explanation? If so please ask and I'll furnish more details. For example did you not notice my comment on the precise definition that exists for collateral damage? -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't understood your arguments. These terms should not be used in WP articles as euphemisms, which is what the page says. Are you arguing that they ought to be so used? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am saying as the words all have clear definitions and in no case is one a "figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended." They are not euphemisms, so they are not good examples to include in a guideline. There are hundreds of words that meet the criteria of these four and we do not include them. For example one can write "casualty" instead of "killed", but equally without a source one can not know which is the correct word to use in a sentence like "There were five confirmed .... as a direct result of the accident". One can not tell just from the content of a sentence whether "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" is the correct term to use. For example "According to Lutz the Cromwellian pacification of Ireland was an early example of ..." it could be either "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" one can not be substituted for the other as they both have distinct meanings. This is different from "She was laid to rest in the churchyard on 13 December 1900" where "laid to rest" is an euphemism for buried.

Martin Shaw is a social scientist who disagrees with the judgement of the ICJ in the Bosnian Genocide Case. He wrote a book published in 2007 (the year of the verdict) with a chapter entitled "The Minimal Euphemism: the substitution of 'ethnic cleansing' for genocide". He is in favour of a broad definition of genocide (See genocide definitions) rather than the narrow definition used by the international courts. In the chapter he describes why he thinks that many main-stream commentators make a distinction, in his opinion it is all to do with politics and the of the western powers. He may be right (its a matter of opinion and he is an expert), but even while criticising the gradual narrowing of the use of the term genocide to biological destruction, and the substitution of the new phrase ([that can involve cultural genocide rather than biological genocide (PBS)]), he recognises that the use of the terms as distinct. -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit much to read, Philip. Can you sum up your argument? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Then read just the first four sentences. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, still don't get it. Are you arguing that "collateral damage" is rarely if ever used as a euphemism? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to get some terminology sorted out does anyone disagree with the OED that an euphemism is a "figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended."? I will assume unless anyone disagrees that we are using that as our definition.

SV with the question you are asking do you mean in general or do you mean in Wikipeida articles? -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean in general. Are you saying that collateral damage is rarely if ever used as a euphemism? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In reliable sources or in all sources? -- PBS (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is very time-consuming and I can't see why it needs to be. It's a simple enough question. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So are my questions! But I will assume that you mean in reliable sources, in which case I have to say I have no idea because as I know what collateral damage means I do not find its use an euphemism, but as I do not know the motives of the author is when they use the term, so I can not know if they intended it to be an euphemistic phrase. What is more pertinent for inclusion in this guideline is if have any examples of Wikipedia editors agreeing that their use of the phrase "collateral damage" was euphemistic and that they should have used some other phrase? Unless it is a widespread problem, then it is not something we need to include in this guideline. -- PBS (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SV, do you think that "primate" is a euphemism for "human"?

Primate is a large group that includes (but is not limited to) humans, exactly like collateral damage is a large group that includes (but is not limited to) civilian deaths. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow, sorry. I have never seen primate used as a euphemism for human. I've often see collateral damage used as a euphemism for civilian deaths. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

But collateral damage encompass the death of non-combatants and the destruction of civilian property, how is that an euphemism? If the civilians are engaged in combat or close combat support, then they are legitimate military targets and their deaths are not collateral damage and civilian infrastructure targeted because it is being used to directly support the enemy is not collateral damage. Are you sure that you do not mean non-combatants when you write civilians? You say you have often seen collateral damage used as a euphemism for civilian deaths. Would you care to give us a example? --PBS (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a fine and memorable example.

The matter of ethnic cleansing vs. genocide is more complex, though the former has clearly been used to avoid the latter in contexts where official use of genocide would obligate a government to take actions it would rather not—an institutional sort of euphemistic practice with grave consequences. For our purposes, however, I believe it is more to the point that ethnic cleansing is often used in ordinary discourse as a euphemism for mass murder. I would support an edit of the current language ("...nor ethnic cleansing for genocide") either to (a) "...nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder" or (b) "...nor ethnic cleansing for genocide or mass murder".—DCGeist (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is not mass murder, it may entail mass murder but it does not have to. For example one of the elements that the ICTY mentioned in their judgement in the "Prosecutor v. Krstic" case when deciding that a genocide occured at Srebrenica was the the ethnic cleansing of 25,000–30,000 women and children from in and around Srebrenica.

Ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.

It may involve crimes against humanity, but that does not necessarily mean mass murder. As the UN found when investigating ethnic cleansing in Bosnia

many reports describing the policy and practices conducted in the former Yugoslavia, 'ethnic cleansing' has been carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.

Ethnic cleansing has a specific definition, and it is not "figure of speech which consists in the substitution of a word or expression of comparatively favourable implication or less unpleasant associations, instead of the harsher or more offensive one that would more precisely designate what is intended". -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know very well that not every use of ethnic cleansing is a euphemistic substitution for mass murder. That's not the point.

Where mass murder has been committed, the use of ethnic cleansing rather than mass murder to describe that fact is euphemistic. Where organized mass rapes have taken place, the use of ethnic cleansing rather than mass rapes to describe that fact is euphemistic. And so forth. Clear? We don't need to cite every example. The euphemistic substitution of ethnic cleansing for mass murder seems the clearest, most prevalent, and thus most appropriate choice.—DCGeist (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How so? Usually ethnic cleansing involves many more crimes than just mass murder and mass murder can be committed when no ethnic cleansing is in progress. As ethnic cleansing has a well known specific meaning, which may encompass mass it is not an euphemism for mass murder any more than genocide is a euphemism for mass murder, but in the case of genocide it always involves mass murder. -- PBS (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"How so?" you ask? The use of ethnic cleansing as a substitute for mass murder when it is a case of mass murder (committed for whatever objective) being discussed is a euphemistic usage as it is a relatively "agreeable or inoffensive expression substituted for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant."

In various ways, I have repeated this explanation multiple times to you now. I do not believe it productive to engage in further conversation with you on this point. We'll keep it simple: Unless and until you forge an unambiguous consensus here in support of your position, I will revert on sight any attempt you make to eliminate ethnic cleansing or collateral damage from the Euphemisms subsection of the guideline, referencing my comments and those of SlimVirgin's in this thread. Goodbye.—DCGeist (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

who's definition are you using for euphemism? when you write "agreeable or inoffensive expression substituted for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant."? Since when has ethnic cleansing ever been more of an "agreeable or inoffensive expression" than genocide? Do you have any examples from edit history to back up your assertion that ethnic cleansing is used as an euphemism for genocide? -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Substantively, my previous comment stands. As a personal point of interest, I'm very curious: Is English (a) your second language, (b) your third language, or (c) a language you are still in the process of studying for the first time? In any case—good luck! English is the best. I'll be so happy to converse with you in it, when you learn it...if you ever do. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If it were a tick test and there were only those three options I would tick (c). However you could have added more options such as (d) none of those, or (d) first language, or (d) fourth language etc. The talk page is meant to be a place were were can discuss differences of opinion and reach an accommodation: The reason I asked who's definition you are using is because I supplied one from the OED, and you are not using it, you are using a different one, so it is not unreasonable to ask where your definition comes from because to aid understanding it is better if we both use the same definition. I am surprised (and disappointed) that an experienced editor like you would threaten to revert changes without further explanation, and I am sorry that you need to ask me a personal question like that as IMHO it is a form of ad hominem from which I infer you are implying that I do not know what I am talking about. Now can we please get back to discussing the content of the article? Can you please answer the questions I asked you (at 07:53, 14 November)? -- PBS (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when has ethnic cleansing ever been more of an "agreeable or inoffensive expression" than genocide? Are there any examples from edit history of Wikipeida articles to back up the assertion that ethnic cleansing is used as an euphemism for genocide? Are there any examples from edit history of Wikipeida articles where that "collateral damage" has been used to mask "civilian casualties"? -- PBS (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin you revered my edit with the comment "consensus on talk was against you". To date you have not explained you reasons for not approving of the changes or an evidence that the terms are used a euphemisms on Wikiepdia. -- PBS (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip, people have explained already, and insisting that we keep repeating ourselves is a bit disruptive. If you disagree, by all means post a neutrally worded RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

To date you have not explained yourself all you have said is:

• "it's the use of these terms as euphemisms that is referred to here, not their use in general."
• "These terms should not be used in WP articles as euphemisms, which is what the page says."

"I don't follow, sorry. I have never seen primate used as a euphemism for human. I've often see collateral damage used as a euphemism for civilian deaths."

Yet you have produced no evidence what so ever that these terms are used as euphemisms in Wikipedia, or for that matter that this guideline is used to point out to editors that there is such a guideline guidance because they are using the terms as euphemisms. If you have often seen collateral damage used as a euphemism for civilian deaths then it will be easy for you to point to example in Wikipedia and the invocation of this guideline to explain collateral damage should not be used. It is not disruptive to ask for evidence of something for its inclusion in a guideline and to remove the text from a guideline when it is not forthcoming. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"You have produced no evidence what so ever [...] that this guideline is used to point out to editors that there is such a guideline because they are using the terms as euphemisms." This is completely incoherent. As Slim says, if you continue to have a problem with the consensus against your position, post a neutrally worded RfC.—DCGeist (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was incoherent strike a guideline and replace with "guidance". -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with DCGeist and SlimVirgin. (See e.g. Collateral damage#History, Airstrike and Targeted killing for history and onwiki usage.) Geometry guy 00:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Geometry guy it is not that the term "Collateral damage" is not used (we have an article on it) it is that no examples of collateral damage have been used as an euphemism. As it includes more than just killing non-combatants, it also encompass destruction of property not being used to military advantage of the enemy, it is hard to see how it can be used as an euphemism. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the four editors seem to be approximately evenly divided -- because I don't actually think that this term is best handled in the "Euphemisms" section -- I think that claims of any consensus are premature.

I'd like to see these terms somewhere on this page. But I've not seen anyone use them as euphemisms, I don't think that either of them are "agreeable or inoffensive" terms, and they may be better handled in another way, e.g., a section dedicated to words whose technical meaning is relevant to the subject matter and too often misused by people who don't look them up. As another example, there's a difference in pharmacology between an "indication" and an "approved indication", as well as between drugs (e.g., aspirin) and biologics (e.g., insulin). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to have them in a separate section. -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Israeli court: "Harm to innocent civilians caused during military attacks (collateral damage) must be proportional."

Wikipedia article: "Israeli army radio said that it was the first opportunity to target Rantissi without significant collateral damage since he took over leadership of Hamas, as he had surrounded himself with human shields since the targeted killing of Yassin."

These examples speak for themselves.Geometry guy 00:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that these examples speak for themselves, because what they are talking about is not just civilian causalities, but fine legal distinctions about whether a civilian who is a voluntary member of a human shield is a an unlawful combatant or a non-combatant, and even if they are a non combatant if an attack that goes through such a shield is it within the laws of war (See Proportionality). This is discussed at length in Chained to cannons or wearing targets on their T-shirts: human shields in international humanitarian law by Ste´phanie Bouchie´ de Belle. In such a case the killing of civilians and "collateral damage" depends on their status, over which there is much legal disagreement.

Geometry guy do you have any examples of misuse in the passive narrative voice in a Wikipeida article? -- PBS (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"In carrying out targeted killings, Israel focuses on four principles of international law: proportionality, military necessity, minimizing collateral damage to innocent civilians, and no alternatives to killing." See above for the Israeli definition of minimal collateral damage. Geometry guy 01:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have real problems with the article targeted killing (as is well known), but in that specific example from that article the problem lies with "innocent civilians", the use of collateral damage is quite common in expert articles about this see for example the first two lines on page 900 of the ICRC de Belle article I that I linked to above: it uses very similar language including "collateral damage" but excluding innocent. -- PBS (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with other editors that your perspective, while it may be self-consistent and principled (which I admire), is not in line with community consensus. I would be happy to comment further on user talk in due course. Geometry guy 01:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is moving from disruptive to disturbing, Philip. What would the passive voice have to do with anything? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One may or may not agree with content of a quote, but POVs can be expressed in quotes and if the author of a quote uses or does not use an euphemism that is not directly relevant to it use on Wikipdia. (For example as is explained in the ICRC def Belle article (above) there is a legal dispute over Israeli court use of the word "innocent" as in "innocent civilians" others contend that collateral damage includes "all civilians"). I do not pretend to have read many of the millions of articles on Wikipedia, but if we are giving guidance here then there has to be clear and precipitant misuse of the terms by Wikipedia editors which means misuse in the passive narrative voice in a Wikipeida article. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of the passive voice issue. Could you explain, please? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am describing the same thing that you are when you use the term "Wikpedia's voice" in "Should Wikipedia:Words to watch caution editors against using terms such as ... in Wikipedia's voice?" It is a phrase that has been kicking around for years in various polices and guidelines, and not one I created, (for example it is currently used in Wikipedia:Quotations). -- PBS (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Writing something in Wikipedia's voice has nothing to do with the passive voice. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Some history

AFAICT The initial suggestion for collateral damage and ethnic cleansing was proposed by Maurreen with a talk page comment at 05:17, 16 April 2010 there was a reply by Gnevin at 05:17, 16 April 2010 and it was implemented by DCGeist at 09:26, 17 April 2010 with the initial wording "Expressions such as collateral damage and ethnic cleansing mask violence in clinical terms." This stayed in pace until SlimVirgin removed ethnic cleansing with 2 edits the first contained the edit history comment "Euphemisms: this isn't a euphemism" and a follow up edit at 00:58, 23 August 2010 AFAICT with no discussion by her on the talk page. Ethnic cleansing was reintroduced into this guideline at 23:44, 24 August 2010 by Geometry guy with the wording close to that in the guideline today "Some words have euphemistic usages: do not use "issue" for "problem" or "dispute", "ethnic cleansing" for "genocide", or "collateral damage" for "civilian casualties"." collateral damage was removed the next day by an IP address but then revered the day after by Happy-melon. It was sort of discussed in the section now archived Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch)/Archive 2#"Ethnic cleansing" and in which I asked the question three days after the change on the 24th I asked the question "What is "ethnic cleansing" an euphemism for? If it is an euphemism then how do you explain its use in the ICJ judgement in the Bosnian Genocide Case." to which Geometry guy replied at 00:29, 28 August 2010 "Using 'ethnic cleansing' to mean 'genocide; is euphemistic; using 'genocide' to mean 'ethnic cleansing' is not, although it could be contentious for other reasons. Euphemisms generally operate in one direction." -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Terrorism and attribution at Left-wing terrorism

Please see my Request for Comment at Talk:Left-wing_terrorism#RfC:_Terrorism_and_attribution. We haven't had much response so far. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on collateral damage and ethnic cleansing

Should Wikipedia:Words to watch caution editors against using terms such as "collateral damage" and "ethnic cleansing" as euphemisms in Wikipedia's voice? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Keep. The terms are, of course, allowed when reporting what sources are saying. But editors should never use such terms themselves when writing in Wikpedia's voice. This seems so obvious that it's almost odd to have to point it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• The term ethnic cleansing is not an euphemism genocide and collateral damage does not mask civilian casualties. No evidence produced on the talk page that they are used this way. Is there evidence or references to the contrary. There should be more information for editors to be able to understand this RFC. QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quack, please return to your comment and copyedit it so that it is expressed in intelligible English. At present, it is incoherent to the point of irrelevance. One thing it is possible to suss out is that you want "more information". Please articulate as precisely as you can the sort of information you believe will best serve the participants in this process.—DCGeist (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Put in a different section. These terms are not euphemisms ("replacing another with one that is considered less offensive" or "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression": Anyone here actually think that these are agreeable or inoffensive terms?) and do not seem to be used by Wikipedia editors as euphemisms. (Evidence to the contrary has been repeatedly requested, and the response has much in common with the sound of crickets chirping.) However, I think that they do need to be placed somewhere on this page, so that editors are aware that they might be misused for reasons other than, or at least in addition to, euphemistic errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Put in a different section. Support the suggestion by WhatamIdoing. -- PBS (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or Put in a different section. The current version is against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quack, this edit of yours was inappropriate and has been reverted.—DCGeist (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why was it inappropriate? -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Because no consensus to delete the terms was achieved, that is why.—DCGeist (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

DCGeist, QuackGuru statement seems clear enough to me. Are there any examples in the history of any article where ethnic cleansing has been used as an euphemism for genocide? -- They will be easy to spot because the phrase ethnic cleansing will have been replaced with the word genocide. Are there any article histories or article talk pages were one editor has claimed that another editor has used ethnic cleansing an euphemism for genocide? Are there any article talk pages where one editor has explained to another that ethnic cleansing an euphemism for genocide and used this guideline to give guidance. If ethnic cleansing is commonly used as an euphemism genocide by Wikipedia editors then there should be dozens of examples. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip, both items seem to me to be clearly in the mould of "bleaching"—if not intentional by the editor, they certainly run a significant risk of functioning that way. I do wish you'd engage with people more positively. We are not islands unto ourselves here. Tony (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If it has not been an editorial problem then there seems little point bloating a guideline with words that have not been used as euphemism, indeed one of the reasons for combining several guidelines into this one and trimming sections here was because the old guidelines were said to be too verbose. Bearing in mind that "ethnic cleansing" has its origins in the murky world of Balkans politics, and it was not until it was defined by Commission of Experts for the UN in 1994 that it had a precise definition and it take time for that definition to promulgate, do you have any examples from after Wikipeida was created [21st century] were ethnic cleansing has been used as an euphemism for genocide? To do that the author would not know the specific and distinct definitions for these terms (which makes it hard to see how the source could be a reliable one) as normally disagreement over whether an event was a genocide hinges on the specific issues of the intent of the perpetrators and the size of the group killed. -- PBS (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin given your statement above why did you remove ethnic cleansing from the section Euphemisms on 21 August 2010 with the comment "this isn't a euphemism"? -- PBS (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I do think the case of ethnic cleansing is somewhat weaker than the case for collateral damage, in part because I see the former as just as bad as the phrases it might replace, and didn't agree with the way it was previously presented as "masking violence." But I also think it makes sense to handle the terms together and the "masking violence" thing is no longer there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironically

Shouldn't this be included? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. "Ironically" signals awareness that there is an "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result." It can seem obtuse, even clumsy, not to acknowledge such incongruities. Do you see this word being misused often here? Perhaps you could give us a couple of examples.—DCGeist (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Piracy"

Let's add the word piracy (in the sense of copying) to the list. Although it is in wide use by other publications, I think Wikipedia should avoid it because it imposes (and/or reinforces) the view that copying (a neutral activity) is bad (more specifically, ethically equivalent to murder or robbery at sea [for info see 18 U.S.C. § 1652]). This is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy on not pushing a point of view. The other point of view is, of course, that copying is helpful because it facilitates sharing, a positive activity. More info at [14] and [15]. I think we should use the neutral terms

• 'copying' (for when the intentions of the person-who-created-the-work/institution-which-holds-the-copyright are unknown)
• 'unauthorized copying' (for when the person-who-created-the-work/institution-which-holds-the-copyright intends for a specific use not to happen, but is legal (e.g. Fair use in the USA))
• 'prohibited copying' (for when the specific use is illegal)

Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:207.65.109.10 (talk • contribs)

The use of the term "piracy" for intellectual property right infringement has a rather longer history than as such. You can see in the Wikipedia article on copyright infringement that this use of the term actually goes all the way back to 1603. I agree that the term "piracy" shouldn't be used where there aren't any property rights being violated, but I don't think that that is too common either on Wikipedia. But to me, using the phrase "prohibited copying" instead of just saying "piracy" is stilted language and euphemistic, and could therefore just as well be added here.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Peacock vs. hyperbole

I changed

• Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and the greatest songwriter of all time.

to

• Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a legendary songwriter.

because I think it's reasonable to assume that someone might see the example and think only exaggerated claims are peacock terms. Suggesting that Dylan is the greatest songerwriter of all time is so over the top that everyone can understand why it's not encyclopedic, and no reasonable person would attempt to include that. Most people including peacock terms, however, are NOT unreasonable ultra-fans. They are more likely to write something like the second sentence. (Actually, it would be better if it described Dylan as a defining figure rather than the defining figure of the 1960s. I didn't notice it when I edited). Sorry for not discussing first, DCGeist, but I didn't think it was a controversial edit. Any thoughts from the crowd? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but your argument is cogent so I'm OK to run with it. Not on a replacing the, though. I can readily imagine a as being appropriate in certain summary contexts. I don't believe that's a good example of the problem.—DCGeist (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And actually, I'm going to replace legendary with brilliant. That is still in accord with the point you make, I believe, but again is a better example. Legendary is a synonym for well-known or famous, which is objectively verifiable. Brilliant is an inescapably subjective judgment and thus more apropos here.—DCGeist (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, those are useful changes. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Idiom and cliché.

"In a nutshell" is both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.33.108 (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Only/Still/Yet (Editorializing)

There are several words that some editors seem to have trouble understanding. One is "only." Particularly when the media has used it. For that instance, IMO, insufficiently humble I am sure, it would be a good idea to avoid. "The police found only X" meaning "The police should have found more than X" or maybe "The police shouldn't have looked in the first place." Rather than saying, "The police found X" and letting it go at that without the pejorative addition of "only." There are instances where the sentence wouldn't make sense without "only." Which is why it is a "word to watch", not a word that is forbidden by any means. "Still" or "yet" are often in the same category. The media doesn't think that X should be present and so reports "There are still x."

Having said that, I really see scant reason for using adjective or adverbs that could be removed and still (still!!?) leave the meaning of the sentence intact. Maybe the emphasis should be on omitting uncessary adjectives. KISS! :) Student7 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: WP:WTA#Unsupported_attributions

I note that the text reads "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.", should that be understood as inline attributed, or will a short list of refs at the end of the sentence suffice? The current situation is about using words such as 'some', 'many', 'multiple' vs just giving a numerical figure of those known to the editors at the time of writing. Thanks! un☯mi 14:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is voiced opposition I plan to change the wording to make it clear that vague wording should be limited to direct quotes. un☯mi 10:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question, there is no set rule as to the nature of the attribution. A ref is generally sufficient for "clear attribution", for instance, when it is the author of the source who is directly responsible for making the claim. Where available sources describe claims made by other parties, it is generally advisable to provide the attribution in running text.

In response to your "statement of intent", the point of what you seek to achieve is not clear.—DCGeist (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as there are references given there's no problem to verify those claims. Since you're an involved party in the "current situation", I'd appreciate it if you left it to uninvolved editors to change guidelines relevant to that question. --Six words (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The general problem is with situations where you have 2 or 3 sources affirming a given position - and this is used for wording such as 'several', 'multiple' etc., the "current situation" as you put it was sought resolved via WP:NORN where outside editors suggested wording that was more specific, in this case "more than 2" - this suggestion was then sidestepped by changing the language from "multiple reviews" to simply "reviews". un☯mi 16:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm, unless you call yourself an outside editor, there was exactly one person suggesting to be more specific. I already said that I think there's no need for a qualifier - saying “reviews” is OK if the reviews are used as references. But to stay on topic: while it is OK to suggest rewording the guideline, I oppose that you do the rewording (and also that it is done “unless there is voiced opposition”). --Six words (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If I were to claim that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow, to whom should I attribute this? God? I don't believe in God. Someone from UCLA? The local weather person? When I read "Many people[who?] consider this song to be Queen's version of Frank Sinatra's "My Way".", I am fully aware who "many people" are. The fact that someone felt the need to ask the question "who?" indicates that someone is a fucking idiot, and I don't think fucking idiots should have editing privileges in something that claims to be an encyclopedia, free or not. Does this not seem reasonable?

I get that a lot of people want to play in this sandbox. And many people don't have much in life to make them feel important, or even wanted. But that is not my problem, nor do I care. If I read in Wikipedia that the Sun rises in the east, I DO NOT want to see a [who says?]. And if I read that 'We are the Champions' was Queens' penultimate song, I don't want to see that some lonely loser idiot uninformed douche questioned it. Especially when the reason the douche questioned this information, that almost everyone else knows to be true, is: JUST. BECAUSE. I. CAN.

This is not reason enough. Wikipedia is now large enough to move beyond any dumbass directly editing articles. Hire an editorial board, and have any submissions be vetted and instituted by them.

I noticed some of the hipster/doofus media chiding you the last few days over not being completely accurate. I think taking away just anyones ability to edit would get a lot of peoples attention, and make them think you were moving to stage two of being (one of) the most important and relevant data repositories of our day. 72.70.140.116 (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.

Articles should avoid adjectives, particularly when specifics are available. Generalizing phraseology should be avoided. "Most people think..", "best song", etc. particularly by Wikipedia editors. Perhaps by (outside) qualified reviewers, particularly if there were more than one who agreed. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK example

I think the following line in the example of WP:PEACOCK, "By the mid-1970s, his songs had already been covered by hundreds of other artists.<ref>Grossman, Lyod. ''A Social History of Rock Music: From the Greasers to Glitter Rock''(McKay: 1976), p. 66.</ref>", could still be interpreted as peacockery. A more neutral way would be to present it as "Lyod Grossman writes that by the mid-1970s, his songs had already been covered by hundreds of other artists...". Since "hundreds of other artists" is still subjective, debatable. Also we can present it as a opinion instead of as a fact ( per WP:NPOV ). Any comments? --TheMandarin (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "hundreds" isn't subjective. In fact, numbers are a perfect example of something that is not subjective. If it's dubious or debatable, that's a different issue. The claim itself might not be verifiable. Maybe Grossman is exaggerating, maybe he's totally incorrect, but he's not using peacock terms. For example, if someone said "Elvis's songs have been covered by hundreds of other artists" it wouldn't be debatable at all. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties vs. Collateral Damage

Collateral damage is not a euphemism. It's a broad term that includes civilian casualties among other unintended results of a military attack. --Dekker451 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Argued

In terms of synonyms for said, where does argued sit? If I say "source X argued Y", is that similar to saying "source X asserted Y", and the same concerns regarding the implications apply? Or is argued a neutral term, like stated? Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it as a neutral term. I think 'argued' is most often used for indicating that some logical argument was used to assert a claim. That to me isn't loaded, it doesn't to me imply in the same way that 'asserted' or 'claimed' could that the statement might be wrong. Of course the word could probably be abused in some way, but I don't think that the way 'argued' is usually used is problematic.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we add "argued" as an acceptable synonym for "said" to the WP:SAY guideline then, with appropriate notes on usage? The term is used very widely around Wikipedia, so it would be good to provide guidance to its usage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be added to the recommended words and phrases. Those are words and phrases which are "almost always neutral and accurate". I don't think that is necessarily case with 'argued'. As I said before, I think 'argued' is most often used for statements supported by logical arguments, which is more narrow than all situations you could use 'said', 'wrote' or 'stated' for. I don't think a usage guide is necessary either, unless you can somehow document that the word is regularly being misused in Wikipedia, as I think people can use their common sense of language to determine when a statement is 'argued'. Wikipedia has a principle about not making guidelines unless they are needed (WP:BEANS, WP:CREEP, WP:DIG...).TheFreeloader (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidance on this word seems necessary to me because I'm currently watching a page with an edit war over whether "argued" is a weasel word. Some editors there are saying that "argued" has the same connotations as "claimed", and referring to this guideline for why "claimed" is problematic. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't think 'argued' is similar to 'claimed'. Argued just indicates that a statement was presented in a certain way, while 'claimed' may in some instances imply that a statement might be wrong. If some editors really do think 'argued' is problematic, I think they should themselves come here and explain why.

I did find the discussion about Stated vs. argued, but to me it really seems like it's 'stated' and not 'argued' which is the issue there. It might be an interesting discussion to have, to find out if 'stated' really is a neutral term to use. But I think that that discussion be should taking place over here, and not in a single article's talk page, because if 'stated' really does imply to people that a statement is true the same way 'revealed', 'explained' or 'pointed out' might, then the term would not be "almost always be neutral" and it should not be recommended in this guideline. To me 'to state' just means to say or write something. Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionary says pretty much the same[16][17], to express something in words. Wiktionary however says that 'to state' can mean "to declare something to be fact"[18], which would lend some credence to the claim that the term isn't neutral, although a declaration that something is true is still only someone's opinion. But in any event, this discussion should take place over here, and possibly under an RFC, as phasing out the use of 'stated' would have pretty far reaching implications for all of Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that context is everything here. For a rather large list of "claims" and "counterclaims", "argued" might not seem out of context and a welcome relief. But for one statement, it might seem like there is only one person out there who disagrees; almost pov. For this latter case, I think the verb should be avoided and a more neutral "said" ("However X said") or "stated" would sound more npov IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Stated vs. argued is about an edit where stated was changed to argued because the editor felt that the source's statement was "an opinion not a fact". This was reverted with other editors called argued a "weasel word". Therefore it's about both words. I don't believe argued is a weasel word, but I do think the editor was using it as a weasel word (i.e. using it in an attempt to downplay the credibility of the source). I raised the question about argued here because there is already a guideline with strong consensus to refer to regarded stated, but not for argued. I think the challenge in that discussion to using stated as a neutral term in regards to implication of factuality is unfounded. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Venue for discussion of various terms

Just wanted to bring up two terms I've heard recently challenged. Don't know any other place to discuss these. The term was "bankrupt" when applied to Medicare or Social Security, as is often done. The other was the term "illegal" applied to people who have immigrated without proper documentation.

The first was challenged because the courts have not declared that the funds were indeed "bankrupt" under Chapter 11, or whatever. Nor will this ever happen because it is impossible politically.

The second is because none of the people have been declared (by a court again) in this country in violation of the law. They have not been convicted. Note that this is not a BLP problem, but a matter of labeling.

Without debating these particular terms which I am sure everyone has an opinion on (!), 1) where is the forum for discussing these? And 2) are these all "consensus" words? So majority (or clear majority) rules on use of terms such as these? Or can we use (in the instance of "illegal") a term that is consistently used by nearly everyone? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A corollary to this - is there room for use of "common" terms to describe something as opposed to "legal" terms? The immigrant is not here legally, therefore, in common parlance, he is here "illegally." The fund above is near "bankruptcy" in common terms, if not legal. The "Theory of Evolution" is "only a theory" in common parlance because the word "theory" is not understood to be as solid as it is among scientists. Student7 (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all scientists think that "theory" means "proven, for all intents and purposes". Among physicists, "theory" is a remarkably strong word, e.g., Theory of gravity. At the other end of the spectrum, what a research psychologist calls a "theory" might be derided by the physicists as just "a nice little story". Psychological theories come and go, and may have very little data behind them. Among psychologists, what makes something a theory is how you express it (as a series of propositions that must be either true or false).

These words should be used according to the common use for the particular subject area. That means (e.g.) that you can still call theft "illegal", even if no court has ruled that this or that act was illegal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Student7, you are confounding three things? One is when a writer deliberately (or sometimes unintentionally) puts a "spin" on words, as in WP:BIAS or WP:WORDS. That is more or less harmful to the truth, and instances may need to be called out, as you have done with these two examples. However, and I'll use "illegal immigrant" as an example, often words have more than one sense, and indistinct "clouds of meaning". To object to "illegal" in a thorough fashion, you'd need to get out a Webster's 3rd and the OED, and read all the definitions. That is, you may be objecting to one word sense, but the writer meant a different sense.

The other issue is one of basic communication: If I call a tomato a vegetable, it's not all that constructive in many situations for someone to point out to me that it's actually a fruit. As in ... actually ... who cares? It fills a healthy role in my diet in being a fresh plant, and that may be the only thing I'm concerned about. Furthermore, it's probably all most people are concerned about. So to take someone to task for "illegal immigrant" might be pointing at some particular legalistic definition that you choose to emphasize -- to the expense of a phrase that's very widely used and commonly understood. (Similar commentary seems to apply to your objection about "bankrupt".) However! I am sensitive to the issues, and sometimes they are worth raising. As an example, I'm especially concerned with Wikipedia's tendency to report legal suits that have not been resolved. If a suit is lost, essentially, legally, there has been no wrongdoing. So why should Wiki be reporting what may be nothing more than a malicious, frivolous accusation? 98.210.208.107 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Resting place

WP:EUPHEMISM uses 'resting place' as an example of a word that should be avoided. However, "resting place" is the default text for both Template:infobox person and Template:infobox military person. According to what I've been told at Template talk:infobox military person, "the term 'resting place' was used because it was the most neutral of the available options (i.e. didn't distinguish between burial, cremation, dumping at sea, cryopreservation, being left for the vultures, etc.)" A related discussion mentions that in some cultures cremation is much more common than burial. I'm confused. Can someone give me an example where using 'resting place' would be inappropriate? Or should those templates simply not provide a default, and require that you indicate which method of...er..."putting the body to rest"...was used? ...comments? ~BFizz 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As a cliché in sentences, in quality writing, "final resting place" is never appropriate. Infoboxes are different, because they need terse labels. There, it's a category: the rules of writing don't apply directly to category names. Perhaps "Final disposition" would be less cliché, but it would also be less comprehensible and more stilted.

In a full sentence in an encyclopedia "resting place" should not appear, and instead "buried", "cremated" ... "cryonically suspended". In less formal writing, as a literary device, "final resting place" may be unimaginative, but unobjectionable in a sentence relating death to someone's path through life: "Fighting many campaigns, X came to his final resting place." However this other cliché use is just straight equivocation: "There comes a day when we each reach our final resting place."

People are sensitive about death, and tend to gloss details, not to think analytically. It's understood that "Rest in Peace" isn't an invocation that a loved one not return as a zombie — but what it does mean may be unspoken. "Rest in Peace" seems like projection; that the speaker wishes their own thoughts not to be unduly disturbed?

Specifically as an example in WP:EUPHEMISM, there's a pragmatic point, which is that the grief-stricken coming to Wikipedia to honor their dear ones need to be cautioned in an unambiguous fashion that funeral parlor language is not the formal language of an encyclopedia. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Peacock; RfC

Editors interested in the peacock section of this MOS may be interested in following the RfC here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

understanding attribution

Encyclopedia Britannica Online says that the findings of evolutionary psychology have been "impressive." Is it OK to say that the findings are impressive and cite EBO? Should we say, "According to Encyclopedia Britannica..."? Or "According to [authors of article],..."? Or should we just not tell the reader that EP findings have been impressive because that's a peacock term?

Same question with the Roman Catholic Church. Neutral sources like EBO say that the RCC has been a definitive force in Western civilization. I'm not Catholic, but I believe in telling it like it is. Is it OK to say that the RCC has been a definitive force in Western civilization if our sources say so, or is that assessment out of bounds because it's peacockery? Leadwind (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

EBO is perhaps not a good example, as it's highly reader-edited from what I understand. The print version of the encyclopedia goes through a scholarly peer-review process, but the online encyclopedia does not.—Biosketch (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My issue isn't the source. Other sources besides EBO say the same thing. Suppose there wasn't a question about the source. Then what's the answer? Can we say "Positive assessment X is the case" and cite it to the source (provided the source is authoritative)? Or do all positive assessments have to be in the form, "XYZ says that positive assessment X is the case"? Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. Most of my work is with more objective stuff and its easy to discard adjectives in favor of the data from which a reader can draw her/his own conclusions. "Cold"? The temperature reports by month show whatever the reader wishes to interpret.

A bit harder with subjective material. Some summary seems appropriate. Either in more or less neutral (or, better, antagonistic) media. For example, it would be better if an editorial in the WSJ would say how wonderful the progress in psychology has been. Or in Newsweek or the NY Times commending the RC Church. Not so sure about Newsweek commending psychology, but maybe a better source can't be found at the moment. The material would be in the lead in this case and repeated in the body with footnotes.

This would mean that (notable) Joe Jones can say that Subjective Topic has contributed a lot to civilization. But would also mean that another notable can say that the same topic has been the downfall of civilization. Not sure I would want this argument in the lead at length. Maybe just summarized there. "Some say one thing, others the opposite." Then in detail somewhere else. But probably not early in the article.

But even subjective topics have objective measurements. How many people are now cured that weren't before? That sort of thing. Student7 (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if the reliable sources (note the plural) agree on a point, then you should just assert it as a fact. If there are divergent views, then WP:INTEXT attribution is appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LABEL and categories

I'd like to expand WP:LABEL to deal with contentious/value-laden labels in categories.

Here's the existing text:

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

I'd like to add something like "Categories with value-laden words and labels should not be applied to organizations or individuals, unless the categories themselves specifically include attribution."

Thoughts? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "...unless multiple reliable sources indicate otherwise"? --Brandmeister t 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But the point is that, according to the existing text, in-text attribution should be used. So in the body of the article, "GroupA is a cult" with a citation is not enough, you need to attribute it in the sentence: "Person X has called GroupA a cult" (with a citation). My problem is that if you attach Category:Cults to the GroupA article, it ceases to be directly attributed to anyone, and is effectively attributed to Wikipedia. So then wikipedia is describing the group as a cult, which presents serious issues of libel. This is why Category:Cults has a note at the top reading: "This category includes topics related to cults. It does not include groups themselves." It seems to me that would be good practise all around. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we be discussing "categories" here? I thought there was a policy page for categories that was separate.

This appears to say that editors may not term the Taliban or Hamas as a "terrorist" organization, even if reliable sources do. On one hand I hate pejorative labeling. On the other hand, an organization which clearly targets civilians and kills them indiscriminately does not qualify as a charitable group IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Student7, that's already the case. Those organizations are listed under Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States government (among others) and Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted in 2006. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this should be handled at WP:CAT. This page should not WP:CREEP into the categorization guideline's territory.

As a point that you'll want to consider, the primary purpose of categorization is navigation. It's much more like ==See also== than article content: you don't have to prove that there X is Y; you only have to agree that readers looking at X might be interested in reading Y. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, WhatamIdoing. For your first point, you may well be right, but I couldn't find any related section at WP:CAT that might deal with this, so I thought I'd start here since it's obviously related. For your second point, you may be right again, but I thought I'd ask at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. You may wish to follow the discussion there. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm liking this idea a bit better. Look at Klu Klux Klan (as it was before my change!). On one hand its categorized as a group labeled terrorist by the US government, an objective label. On the other, it is categorized as "Christian terrorism." The latter appears pov.

It labeled itself as "Christian" and therefore could be categorized that way; right next to the terrorism category. The reader could draw his/her own inferences. But no longer with the pov category. This could be workable. But the editor is saying not merely "workable" but mandatory. Maybe that, too, but would like to hear a few more opinions. Student7 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Just changed my example BTW. Don't know whether that will survive or not!  :) Student7 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it didn't survive! The change to object labeling was itself labeled "pov" by the reverting editor! Kind of points up the need for some sort of guideline. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_21#Category:Christian_terrorism. Student7 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Political correctness?

How would one go about dealing with political correctness? I know that the MLA writer's reference, for example, is rather opposed to gender-specific language, etc. LiteralKa (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Positioning of peacock cartoon

I know this is a bit of a trivial subject, but after I moved the File:Peacock.png image down below the navigation box, it was moved back up. Personally, I prefer the former to the latter, since the nav box is more easily visible and peacock is next to the corresponding section. Any thoughts? Accelerometer (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the same move and got the same reversion because of "lack of consensus". - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with any move. An image in the lead section is a very powerful and valuable memory aid. As peacock terms arguably define the most prominent category of "words to watch" within the particular context of Wikipedia, the peacock image is a most appropriate choice for that lead section image. DocKino (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

ethnic cleansing

Why is ethnic cleansing included in the list of euphemisms?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because "ethnics" (an odd label) are being deliberately killed, not "cleaned." Student7 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems unclear considering the content of the ethnic cleansing article, but I suppose if the term "ethnic cleansing" is employed instead of genocide when the latter term would be more accurate, then ec is a euphemism. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Themightyquill and I believe that the writer of this manual followed the same logic when he/she wrote: "do not use ... ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide". My question was provoked by a comments on the Talk:Bosnian Genocide page. I am afraid that existing formulation could mislead somebody to believe that word ethnic cleansing should always be replaced with mass murder or genocide, which is not necessary true. Considering how sensitive this issue is, maybe it would be better to replace this euphemism example with something less controversial or to clarify the existing formulation by adding (when the latter term would be more accurate)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The preceding clause seems pretty explicit to me: "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided" so "ethnic cleansing" is proper in many contexts, but should not be used in a euphemistic sense. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are again right. Thanks for clarification.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Are the "unsupported attributions" words (such as "some people say..." or "it was proved that..." acceptable in the lead, which must be a summary of the article, if the article later gives the needed detail about which groups said something, or in which way was something proved? Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:PUFFERY

Shouldn't WP:PUFFERY redirect here instead of to the essay it currently does? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a valuable essay reflecting the consensus of many editors and needs a shortcut. The reasoning is based in the history of the style guidelines:

Originally we had an official guideline Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, which now redirects to the "Puffery" section of this Manual of Style "words to watch" guideline as of April 2010. You can see the original version of the original "Avoid peacock terms" guideline here. Both WP:PEACOCK and WP:PEA were widely-used redirects to that original guideline, and they now redirect here also. The Wikipuffery essay that WP:PUFFERY directs to wasn't created until March 2009, by which time "peacock terms" and the redirects WP:PEACOCK and WP:PEA were already in wide usage on Wikipedia, and still are. It wasn't until this overall "Manual of Style (words to watch)" guideline was written to summarize all the other separate guidelines that the term "puffery" was introduced as an official descriptor in Wikipedia guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "very"

I see the word "very" used here and there as an adjective modifier in Wikipedia articles, and I find that removing it usually tightens up a sentence, thereby creating more compelling prose. The word "very" almost never adds value to a sentence. I haven't yet found a sentence on Wikipedia that is improved by inserting "very" in front of any adjective. How would its usage be classified according to this guideline? Editorializing? Weasel words? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

STRONG OBJECT I see no reason this should be done. Very has its proper place in usage and is very useful in a lot of cases. The so-called "compelling prose" is just a subjective feeling varying from person to person, Wikipedia is not a site about "prosing styles". And I don't see at all that it "almost never adds value to a sentence", it's clear a simple "very" can always clear up the structure and idea expressed when used properly. It's just simple English, man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also imprecise English in nearly every instance in which it is used on Wikipedia. If precision is a component of "compelling prose" then there is nothing subjective about it.

"Strong object"? To what? Nobody is proposing to ban the use of the word. I do advocate that the word be listed as something to avoid, because it tends to be used out of sloppiness or laziness when more precise ways of phrasing (which is always desirable) can be found. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying that "How would its usage be classified according to this guideline? Editorializing? Weasel words?", you have clearly pre-classified it as a word to watch. And since you have said you want to advocate that the word be listed as something to avoid, I think your question concerning my objection has been automatically resolved. There are no forbidden words in Wikipedia as far as I know. Well, maybe it's just because I know nothing about your prosing style, so I'm just saying. Kuphrer (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And how come it gets imprecise when modification words are used? What kind of logic is that? "Very small" is more imprecise than "small"? That seems not to be what I learned in school. Which dictionary are you using? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuphrer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The usual response to this sensible sort of statement is that you shouldn't say "very small" or "very few", but instead drown your reader in overly precise statistics, regardless of the context or needs of the article. So it's not "very few people die from lightning strikes each year"; instead, these editors want you to say something like, "one out of every two and a half million people who died last year died from lightning strikes" or "these fungi have an average diameter of 2.5 mm". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." (Mark Twain) The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To use Mark Twain's words as argument is really weak. Writers are reputably inclined to exaggerate and twist facts to create literary vividness and express a point which in a daily basis not, sometimes not at all, as serious as they've stated. It should be common sense that citation from a writer is often dubious and not a WP:IRS. You really need better argument than that.Kuphrer (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a quarter, go buy a sense of humor. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that in almost all cases when some prose is really atrocious it contains a specific definite article: "the". Which is a good section for this word? Hans Adler 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that most poorly written sentences contain vowels as well. But seriously, there is a place for this adverb, even in the more technical articles. Specifically, I see it gainfully used when a qualitative and quantitative assessment are paired back to back to provide an accessible, yet precise statement: "The sun is very large. It contains more than 99% of the total mass in the solar system." (simplified example, I am not claiming that that was exceptional writing by any means). My point is that this word has its uses, and its possible overuse is not a problem in the same way that unsupported peacock terms are. I suggest using good editorial sense, and in cases of conflict developing a consensus for the specific usage on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a perfect example unnecessary usage. "The sun contains 99% of the mass of the solar system" gets the point across quite well, without the redundant preface.

This is a Manual of Style we're discussing. An objective of any Manual of Style is to provide guidelines for compelling prose. I'm simply proposing, as a matter of editorial style consistent with other style guidelines, that "very" is a word to watch out for when its usage serves only to add subjectivity and bloat to a sentence. This guideline we're in now is about words to watch, not words to ban.

VQuakr is correct that one should simply use good editorial sense. I wouldn't have bothered to make this proposal in the first place if another editor hadn't engaged in a battle following a short edit war concerning the characterization of that word as subjective. I was frankly surprised that anyone would take issue so strenuously with what has been a rather standard editorial practice for probably a century at least, so I started this discussion.

I agree that the word has a place. However, in nearly all the examples I can find on Wikipedia, the word doesn't add informational value to the sentence. Rather, its typical usage appears to have the effect of bloating the sentence while adding a subjective editorial/weasel word that often lacks a context for evaluation of how "very" an adjective something is — and if the context is there, it's sufficient just to state it (e.g. "The sun contains 99% of the mass..."). Mark Twain's quote above is apt. "The Sun is damn large" is semantically no different from "The Sun is very large". ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you on any major point, including that my example was not stellar (I am far too pround of that pun, BTW). My conclusion is just different; I do not think the one little battle I have witnessed over this is adequate reason to group it with the more serious and insidious weasel and peacock words on this page. VQuakr (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a playground for prescriptivists. Prescriptivism is harmless so long as people only preach it but don't follow their own bad advice. (E.g. Strunk and White on not using the passive voice and not using adjectives. They break their own advice in the same paragraph where they give it.) But the word list here is already doing a lot of harm because some people actually go around and insist that every instance of a "weasel word" etc. be extinguished. Ultimately this leads to very bad style. (Not just bad style.) Hans Adler 00:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be much better to write "The sun is large; it contains..." or "The sun is much larger than any other object in the solar system". "Very" large is meaningless. A blue whale is also "very large", as is Jupiter and the Milky Way. But the sun is not "very large" for a star, Jupiter is not "very large" for an object in the solar system, and I don't have a clue whether the Milky Way is large, small or average for a galaxy. But I do know it's damn big. Guettarda (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Amatulic and The Spirit on this one. "Very" is usually a flamboyant phrase carried over from the hyper phrases that the media uses to garner attention. It should almost always be jettisoned. The examples of precision given above are the reason. The media often (very often?  :) omits the "details", afraid of boring their less-than-educated television audience. Print media is a bit better IMO, and details are often given there. This is why I prefer local print media to (say) the online version of a national channel. Student7 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguably...

"Arguably" is one of my least favorite words, second only to "utilize". Should arguably be specifically called out in the weasel words section? I've seen dozens of articles where unattributed opinions are cloaked in the formula "Arguably, X is Y". If it is arguable, then state who is making the argument. If the one making the argument is an expert, then write "Expert A argues that X is Y." And while you're at it, expand for us just what said argument consists of, rather than having to take your word for it that it is arguable. If you can't cite any such expert making the argument, nor tell us what the argument is, then delete the claim.

For "utilize", a bot that replaces all instances with "use" would be just fine with me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of this page isn't really to list every example of bad writing style. The primary goal is to identify words that are commonly used to mislead the reader.

If X is arguably Y, then we should find a useful, literate, and contextually appropriate way of saying that, but it isn't actually wrong in the same way "Alice confessed that she was a paid, professional teacher" is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Adverbs (those words ending in -ly) are often unnecessary in formal writing, although they can have some value.

Or restated with adverbs:

Usually adverbs (those words ending in -ly) aren't totally necessary when writing formally, although arguably they can obviously have some value, naturally. :)

~Amatulić (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. "Arguably" is nearly always followed by a WP:OR construction. Which I might have blithely skipped over if it weren't for the word "arguably!" Kind of gets my attention! :) Student7 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I use "utilize" at times because, at least in American English, there is a negative connotation to "use" when the object of the sentence is a human. "Use" often has the connotation of "to take unfair advantage of" or "to exploit ruthlessly and without due consideration of the person". Example: "The company used her for the project." "Utilize" does not have this connotation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The term "dictator"

Should the term "dictator" be added to the list of Contentious labels? 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanded reasons for this request

There has been a discussion recently at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Pro-Communist bias of Wikipedia about the usage or not of the term "dictator" in reference to specific individuals (but, as pointed, that thread did not belong in the reference desk). Going beyond specific peoples or political lines, I think that the term "dictator" should be considered a word that labels, and the use in sentences such as "X was a dictator in - country during - time period" or "Dictator X did - and -" should be discouraged. The prominence of the term and the high visibility of the articles it would be applied to (mostly heads of state) should justify including it among the selected examples at WP:LABEL as well.

Some points to consider.

• "Dictator" is not an office, nor an ideology, nor a defined methodology. There are both far-left and far-rigth dictators. Dictatorship is neither the lack of "democracy": some dictators maintain elections and institutions while disrupting their working or purpose, and a ruler taking power during a state of emergency may do his work as intended (go through the emergency and prevent anarchy, with just the minimum time and actions needed to restore order and secure the appointment of a new ruler by regular means) and wouldn't deserve to be called a dictator. All this means that the word "dictator" does not have a clear and specific meaning.
• Of course, avoiding to use the term "dictator" does not mean being "soft" with dictators or hiding their actions. If they took power through a coup, declared wars, violated human rights, etc; all that may be described clearly and specifically, without the need to use a word that may "imply" them.
• We have men like Hitler or Mussolini, which are universally rejected, but that's not always the case. In most cases, it comes down to National security and rights & freedoms: supporters of X consider him to have done the right things, according to an ongoing state of emergency of some kind, and critics that he should have maintained civil rights and freedoms unmodified. The USA PATRIOT Act or the McCarthyism may be examples of this. In these cases, the correct thing to do is to point who considers what, and the use of the term "dictator" would imply support for one of the sides in the dispute. Which, of course, is not a dispute between libertarianism and fascism, but between idealism and pragmatism: those who supported the patriot act or the mccarthyist policies as a needed step (or a "lesser evil") to counter the terrorist or communist threats to the US surely do not propose that such things should be maintained indefinitely.
• If we talk about someone and need to add a noun to explain why certain man was significant in a given context, such as in international politics, there are always words more exact than "dictator". For example, consider the sentence "X was informed of the assassination of Fooian dictator Y". The word "dictator" may be easily replaced by "president", "governor", "head of state" or similar terms, which serve the same purpose (clarify why was Y's fate of interest for X) and do not lie nor conceal anything about the topic.

For this reasons, I believe that the word "dictator" should be considered a word that labels. Consider as well Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 22#Category:Dictators, when it was agreed to avoid having a "dictators" category for similar reasons.

Of course, the Roman dictators (which was an actual office within Ancient Rome) are outside all this. Cambalachero (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Replies

• Support. Dictator is not a useful descriptor for the reasons outlined above; it only says about the person that "we don't like them". We should consider adding to this list other words that are similarly abused especially on BLPs of world leaders: which include, according to this list, "regime", "iron rule", "autocratic", "repressive", "junta", "reign" (when applied to non-monarchies), "strongman", and "iron-fisted ruler". I have seen such labels too often on Wikipedia articles, both about Communists and non-Communists, and they are totally inconsistent with NPOV. Quigley (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This list goes beyond what is reasonable and would rob us of the ability to describe things as they are. The term "dictator" is not at all inconsistent with NPOV if there are reliable sources, taken with due weight, that the person is, in fact, a dictator. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting these words on the list of "contentious labels"—along with words like "cult", "fundamentalist", and "extremist"—does not ban their use entirely; it just means exactly what you say: that they need in-text attribution from reliable sources. The problem is of Wikipedians applying the value judgment of "dictator" to persons otherwise widely described in neutral sources as "president" or "head of state". Quigley (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the meaning of the word dictator is quite clear, it means an absolute ruler of a state not elected by the people. It's a useful term to have available to distinguish democratically elected leaders with limited powers from not democratically elected leaders with absolute power. I think in the majority of cases it is quite clear which category leaders fall into. Whether someone wielded absolute power and were not elected is not really a matter of perspective, like it is the case with the other terms in WP:LABEL. I do however agree that the term should not be overused when describing leaders, as that may against WP:NPOV (the same way continuously mentioning someone's sexual orientation might be). And I also think that if leaders may reasonably be argued to fall into a gray area, the term shouldn't be used.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As to your last point, I think it's fine to use the term if there are reliable sources which, taken with due weight, say the person is a dictator. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed in the opening, the meaning is not clear, and there are countless complex scenarios to make the "dictatorship or democracy" dichotomy a frail one. Arbitrary powers allowed by law, elections held with fraud or under a single party system, heads of state that get to power by regular elections and become dictators afterwards, dictators rising from popular demonstrations that depose highly umpopular governments, etc. In the level of ideas, we talk about a dictatorship and think of a legal, elected and respected government being deposed by a clique of hateable military coming from nowhere; in practical cases, that's almost never the case.

Besides, the thread at the reference desk had a point: using the term may be biased, but the selective usage (using it in a group of cases and not in others) may be biased as well. Someone may very well put a number of communist books in the table, and cite that in such books Stalin or Mao are not referenced as dictators, while Pinochet is. As with the polemic word "terrorist", the best way to prevent this subtle manipulation is to be consistent: avoid the unatributed use of "dictator", in all cases, regardless of who is the man or how "evil" he was.

By the way, a reminder: adding "dictator" to the words to watch would follow the same rules as with any other of such words. They are not forbidden per se, they are not allowed as in the narrative voice "(word that labels) X did this and that". Uses like "X is considered a (word that labels) by Y" are perfectly allowed. I know how do those words work, and I'm not proposing to change that Cambalachero (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV states that we should: "Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion". And I don't think it's clear that the use of the word "dictator" is always, or even in most cases, contentious, as it is the case with the other words in WP:LABEL. And if it is not a contested assertion that someone is a dictator then we are unjustly removing credibility from assertions by presenting them as mere opinions.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are dictators in the world and we need to be able to say so. The claim just has to be supported by reliable sources, as with everything else stated on Wikipedia. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You could also say, "there are terrorists in the world and we need to be able to say so." Yet 'terrorist' is on our words to watch, and we still use it. This is because putting a word on "words to watch" does not forbid its use. As Cambalachero said: they are not allowed as in the narrative voice "(word that labels) X did this and that". Uses like "X is considered a (word that labels) by Y" are perfectly allowed. Quigley (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we are still not discussing whether Sulla was a dictator or not or whether Catiline was trying to make himself a dictator. Some issues have been solved. I agree that to call a popularly elected president of a first world country a "dictator" because you didn't like something he did, is a bit out of line. But that is true of all labels. Student7 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"controversial" WP:LABEL in article's first sentence

A number of editors have been insisting that the first sentence lede of an article describe an individual as a "controversial" religious leader, because one source says he described himself that way. They argue that, despite WP:LABEL specifically stating one should not use the bare word "controversial", he did a lot of controversial things, and we do have one source in which he describes himself that way, so it must go in the first sentence (or at least the lede). A larger number of more experienced editors disagree, but so far have made no headway. If possible, it would be very helpful if members of this board could express their views at Talk:Elazar Shach#Shach - "controversial and divisive"?. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Puffery: Virtuoso

The word virtuoso is not necessarily a peacock term. I do not think it should be included as an example, which some editors tend to take as doctrine, when it has legitimate use as well. Used simply as an adjective, particularly for a modern recording artist, who is not a feature segment in a greater program, it is a peacock term. However, it also is an accurate descriptor for a way of earning a living for some 19th and 20th century musicians. It can be said that Herbert L. Clarke was a trumpet player, composer and virtuoso performer without being inaccurate or biased. In that context, virtuoso referers to the fact that Clarke made much of his income from performing as an added attraction during band concerts, in the form of a soloist, with the specific function of demonstrating his technical and musical ability and skill for the entertainment of the audience and as a sub-portion of a greater ensemble program. It is possible for someone to functionally perform as a virtuoso while still being bad at what they do (though they would probably have a hard time finding such work). Without the word, the above example, which would be an improvement to the Clarke lead (which currently says "widely considered one of the greatest cornet soloists of all time"), would have to read Herbert L. Clarke was a trumpet player, composer and made a portion of his living as a cornet soloist featured in the midst of band concerts as an added attraction demonstrating his musical and technical skills and ability in a flashy manner for the entertainment of the audience and as such was an attraction and celebrity in his own right. That amounts to 51 words to say what the two virtuoso performer do. We need virtuoso in its correct usage.--Rwberndt (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, do you have any sources for this use of the word virtuoso, where it is used to describe a particular function? In my experience the term virtuoso has mainly been in Wikipedia used to say something comparable to "X is an outstanding(/brilliant/respected/extraordinary/any other word from the list) musician", and not to describe that the subject held a particular position or function. About the article you linked to, Herbert L. Clarke, the lead of that article seems to suffer from a pretty bad case of puffery even without calling him a virtuoso. And I actually think that article is pretty symptomatic for articles about classical musicians in general (and to a lesser extent popular musicians too). They tend to get away with a whole lot of puffery without any raised eyebrows. I mean the leads of the articles on Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton do not go on and on about how they they are "widely considered the among the greatest scientists in history", even though that might be true.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

For sources as to the understanding of the word in the classical music genre(actually in their day it was "popular", the true classical period was prior to the age of the virtuosos), I would first point to its contextual usage in materials such as magazines from the heyday of virtoso performers (that meaning feature soloists with flashy technique, not just, or even necessarily "good") such as The Musical Bulletin Published by Charles Harris in New York in the 1870s, or The Etude Magazine of which I haven't got a copy handy right now for the publisher as I gave them to a museum, but they were popular around the turn of the century. With regard to the point that a virtuoso does not have to be good, just flashy, see The Harvard Dictionary of Music, by Willi Apel, published by The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 1969, p.917. Harvard suffers from excessive superlatives otherwise in every definition, so look to the Unabridged Websters Dictionary from 1885 which makes it clear that a virtuoso is competent, not great, and has some interesting and definitive quotes regarding the influence of Italy on the language immediately following. Finally, there is the Dictionary of Musical Terms by Theo Baker, published by Schirmer (Music)in New York in 1895&1923 which, on page 222, simply says "A finnished instrumentalist or vocalist". Perhaps a bit too brief, but none-the-less again designating the term as indicating competent, but not exceptional. Finally, there are many published recordings of Herbert L. Clarke (I changed that lead as I agree with you on that), Arthur Pryor, Ernst Couturier, Simone Mantia, Frank Belstadt, and others that speak specifically to the age of virtuoso performers in the cover notes. (multi-artist recordings being the best example as the style/era is the theme rather than one artist)--Rwberndt (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how this supports your claim that virtuoso signifies a particular position within a musical group or the music profession. And I don't think it's a valid defense to claim virtuoso doesn't have to mean extraordinarily competent, but that may only have to mean fairly competent, though with flashy technique. This still makes the claim that someone is a virtuoso quite unverifiable and vague. It also still has a lot in common with the other words on the list, like "famous", which could just mean someone is famous in their hometown, or at their workplace. Or like "respected" which could in theory just mean that they are respected by their children or their dog. I also think it's quite obvious that if you were to say in the lead of some musician's article that "X is a musician with flashy technique capable of amazing the audience of his day", which is essential what I see you argue "virtuoso" means, it would look quite out of place and unencyclopedic. That being said, I am not against using the word virtuoso in Wikipedia article. I just think that when it is used, it should be presented as an opinion, not as a fact, in the same way the example in WP:PEACOCK presents it as an opinion that Bob Dylan is a master poet.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Virtuoso should not be abused as a qualitative term - that was the point of the references. It is a descriptor - and I argue that the artist intended to amaze, I do not assert that the term means he or she succeeded. Read the articles in music magazines of the 1850-1920 period - see the use of the term in the context in which I propose it should be correctly used as an encyclopedic descriptor.

OR, then here is the simpe question: how would you propose communicating that a given artist fell into the catagory of those who made their living and earned their celebrity in whole or in part as a feature act, inserted into the programs of related and/or unrelated ensembles, such that promoters intended/hoped audiences would come to see the overall event in part because of said added attraction of this artist who would perform in a manner intended to amaze with style and technique (such claims then to be substantiated by the sourced content of the article) with whatever degree of success? This is just too many words.

Are there more than just the two of us with an opinion on this ??--Rwberndt (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that when I look up the word virtuoso in dictionaries, it's pretty much exclusively a word about the quality of a musician, like in these examples [19][20][21][22][23][24]. I don't have access to the magazines you mention, but I kinda tend to think that if the way they use the word isn't in the dictionaries, then at the very least that definition isn't in use anymore. I also think it probably will be confusing and misleading to readers to use the word virtuoso to describe some function within the music scene when all the dictionaries say it describes a level of competence. As to what other word to use, maybe you could call this kind of a musician a "soloist" or even a "professional soloist", as these are quite verifiable terms. Then in the body of the text you could go into more detail about how exactly they were used as soloist.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You make good points with your sources as to the evolving usage of the word. The extensive merriam-webster one in particular. I guess where we disagree is that I prefer to use words in a manner appropriate to the context, while you are espousing adherence to the present-day understanding exclusively. When using a term in the context of an 1880s figure, such as Clarke, I would look to the use of the term in the 1880s. However, I also see what I suspect your point would be - that not all users are historians or have a background in the particular subject. And, I will grant you that in some cases, such as a 19th century word for a large burning ember used to ignite a fire from that in another room, the modern offensive definition of the same should preclude its use - but I'm not convinced that should extend to those that have evolved inoffensively. I really wish someone else would chime in here just to add more voices and discussion.--Rwberndt (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Musician" is hopefully an objective term. "Virtuoso" is subjective, and should therefore be avoided or everyone who is a musician will wind up a "virtuoso." After reading an objective article, the reader should be able to draw his/her own conclusions about "virtuosity." We should not be "helping" the reader along. That is pov. Our readers are supposed to be intelligent enough to make their own evaluations. Television, for good reason, does not assume this. Therefore they bandy this word about (along with other adjectives) a lot. They don't want viewers making up their own minds! Student7 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm coming around to the presented case - virtuoso is being used as a superlative and appears in hundreds of articles. I never would have dreamed their were so many virtuosos... I'm not sure I want to declare some of them (Yo-Yo Ma, Vladimir Horowitz, James Galway, Arthur Pryor) NOT virtuosos though - I'll leave that to others. I will seek alternate forms of expressing the point where I have used the term in edits.--Rwberndt (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of "Heretic"

Can it be argued that if a recognized church body (like the Roman Catholic Church) officially defines someone as a heretic, the use of that word is allowed, as long as that church is cited with the term? (E.G. Person X is a heretic, according to the Catholic Church.) 98.169.111.167 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this can be used in RC articles where the party was once a Catholic. In the bio, the reference would be milder, I think. "..dismissed from the RC church on the grounds of being a heretic.." or "...meeting their criteria for heretic.." But only if he were a Catholic to start with.

Mary Baker Eddy cannot be described in that fashion, for example, in her bio. There may be a "criticism" article/subsection someplace where such comments would be collected, assuming the person was sufficiently notable to merit that type of criticism.

Only a few churches are constructed hierarchically. So this can't be used generally against, say, Baptists, except where two churches are directly involved. "First Baptist church of Midville found X to be a heretic when he broke away to form the Second Baptist Church of Midville.." But it wouldn't be used generally. Student7 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"At least" and other suggestive vagueness about numbers

Inspired by this diff [25].

In this case, the source (and the editor who added it to the article) used "at least" where they were able to factually confirm a finite number of cases, but wanted to surreptitiously suggest that there may be "even more". This is obviously not neutral and encyclopedic, so I removed it. I brainstormed briefly and came up with "At best", "At worst", "Up to" as other candidates, though there are surely more.

As with just about every case on this page, we don't want to outright ban these phrases. But they usually appear in cases where an editor wants to encourage the reader to infer beyond what the data show, and that's a problem. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this a particularly helpful addition (the style in which it was done is also ver y inconsistent with the established format of the page). My perception is that phrases such as "at least" are used properly "far more" often than improperly in the context of Wikipedia.—DCGeist (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO numerical vagueness is highly desirable in some instances, especially if reliable sources suggest that vagueness is appropriate. It just amazes me to run across editors who are convinced that 26.233% is good, encyclopedic style, especially when the actual source for that number adds a "plus or minus 3%" qualifier to it. "About a quarter" might be a reasonable description of the (hypothetical) source's contents. The general description also helps us make technical articles understandable to normal people.

Similarly, phrases like "more than ___" can be appropriate: If the source says that a company is hiring as fast as they can, then it's more accurate to say that the company has 'more than' <last quarter's number> employees, than to say that is has <known to be out of date number> employees. If the source says that the published literature understates the prevalence of Whosiwhatsitis, then you could correctly represent the source's meaning by saying that 'more than' ___ people have the dreaded disease.

(I agree that the diff shown is a problem.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll disregard concerns about style and consistency since that could easily be fixed by anyone. As for potential appropriateness, you're right that there are appropriate uses, but I made an effort to carve out the philosophy behind what is wrong with certain uses of these words so that a reader can detect a category of POV-pushing that flies "under the radar" like this. I still feel that it may be valuable to have what's wrong with it codified in some guideline, but I'm not sure where. So if this isn't the page, how do we handle it? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The word 'neutralized' (in military context)

I suggest this word be listed in the examples to avoid, as follows:

"Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute, nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage; neutralized should not be used as a euphemism for killed, disarmed, dissuaded, etc.

Various dictionaries explicitly list this usage as a euphemism.[26][27] Trestres (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a very good example. I'd support adding it to the section, either straight up or in place of one of the existing examples.—DCGeist (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

At least some of the words/phrases are used by the military in a deliberately objective manner, by their standards, and not to deliberately mislead. "Neutralize" may mean that the enemy has gone away, or enemy forces have been discouraged out of an area. Maybe no one was killed. "Collateral damage" could mean a building or an auto destroyed by accident (as the article mentions). It doesn't have to mean people. This is the military, brought up to report results in objective terms, so that they may follow-up in the same manner. They are being charged by their government (President) to do this and are paid professionals.

These terms are not in the same category as "ethnic cleansing," which violates International Law, and are made to seem "guilty by association" by suggesting that they are in the same category.

The military are not police. They are supposed to be sent in when police are not up to the job. Police would be very concerned with civilian casualties and damage to property. The military is supposed to achieve an objective. People die. Bombs drop. Buildings are blown up. When discussing some military situations, these terms are more appropriate than listing civilian casualties, or property damage, one at a time.

When Sherman marched through the South, he deliberately caused "collateral damage" (an oxymoron I guess. But usually not to people) as a means of ending the war. Police who did this would be up before a judge in most first world countries. Student7 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Trestres, have you actually seen people on Wikipedia misusing the word neutralized when they ought to be using more precise terms? Can you give me a diff or two?

We try not to list every possible euphemism here. It's more effective to focus on the most common mistakes, because the longer the list, the less likely anyone is to read it. If we have a real problem, then we should consider adding it, but if we don't, we should leave it out.

Student7, I wonder whether we should consider a page that explains these meanings for editors. Sherman's bowties make a great example of purely property-oriented collateral damage. Part of a MILHIST style guide that we could link here? A footnote? Linking to the definitions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarity in example, might I suggest that Sherman is not entirely useful as the rules of war were different then and his military objectives included the destruction of economic infrastructure and the will of the enemy nation to fight through the systematic destruction of property and resources, including human, and terrorizing of the displaced population. Thus "collateral damage" does not apply. An example of properly using the term "collateral damage" would be as a reference to the bomb damage during WWII to USS Monitor, the sunken hull of which was mistaken for a german U-boat.--Rwberndt (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, on further reflection, I agree with you. Destroying the rail lines was a deliberate military objective, and thus not collateral damage. But still purely property damage, since wrapping a rail around a pole doesn't kill anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you scroll down in the linked Webster's definition you also find it listed as both a "common expression" and "specialty expression." Both examples make it clear that neutralization does not have to be a euphemism.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica^Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations vs. attributions

I tagged several sentences in Death of Caylee Anthony for having weasel words, which was quickly reverted by another editor who stated they were not weasel words because they were all properly "attributed". However, I believe the editor is confusing "attributing" with "citing". Here is an example of a sentence that I tagged with {{by whom}}:

"The trial has been compared to the O. J. Simpson murder case, both for its widespread media attention and reported "shock" at the "Not Guilty" verdict.

The tag for this any many other sentences were removed (not in an edit, but rather a careless revert). The citations at the end don't warrant attribution because they need to be in the prose. I have left the editor a message on the talk page, but based on a previous discussion, the editor has had "years of experience" with weasel words and seems to know exactly what he/she is doing. I just want to get some clarification about this to avoid an edit war and to make sure we are all on the same page.–Dream out loud (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated to Dream out loud on my talk page, while I agree that "most," "some" and "others" are weasel words when attributed to what people think or feel or how they behave, I disagree that all these people must be named in the text. As I stated, "The comparison to the O. J. Simpson murder trial is backed up by several reliable sources. I shouldn't have to name each and every one of the individuals who have compared this trial to the O. J. Simpson case, especially since it's too many to name (including the general public)." ...In fact, doing so is never practiced on Wikipedia, and I'll get to that in a moment. Look at the following line quoted by Dream out loud above. In terms of excluding the names of people, how is it any different than saying "The 9/11 attacks had immediate and overwhelming effects upon the American people" (as seen in the 911 attacks#Aftermath section)? Other than the fact that the latter line is specifically mentioned as effecting the American people through text, I'm not seeing a big difference in the style. Are editors here saying that each and every person, regular people included, who have compared this case to the O. J. case should be named? Are editors here saying that "most," "some" and "others" should never be used and that we should list all the names every time? If so, I'm saying that is never done. Not on Wikipedia or anywhere. Otherwise, it would be a namefarm and quite possibly a WP:Linkfarm. This happened with the 2011 Tucson shooting#Political figures section. See where it says "numerous" instead of listing each and every one? For further example, we don't list every celebrity who has spoken out on something. We say "various celebrities" or "several celebrities," etc. Sometimes, it's not even possible to name exactly who all these people are, which is exactly why even reliable sources sometimes state "most Americans." And when even the reliable sources themselves are using "most, "some" or "others," we are simply relaying what the sources are stating. Sometimes, it is a matter of "most," "some" or "others" and we cannot simply leave it as "people."

On a side note, my revert did not remove a tag from a quote that had no attribution or citation. If Dream out loud and I are talking about the same thing, Dream out loud assumed that because the source was at the end of the paragraph. Per the template documentation, a citation is not needed for every sentence - every paragraph would be better. And I fixed what I feel is the only valid tag Dream out loud added, as stated on the user's talk page.[28] I also mentioned the other one.[29] Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Often material from otherwise reliable sources has to be omitted. You have given one example. The OJ Simpson comparison is pov and non-WP:TOPIC. It's irrelevant whether it appeared in the NY Times. It's still unacceptable commentary which is over-the-top for an encyclopedia. We're not trying to "inflame" opinion or sell air time. We are simply trying to record the death of one person and the subsequent trial of another. Inflammatory language is best left to tabloids, not here. But we need policy reasons, as given, to specifically exclude them without the accusation of "censorship.!" Student7 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Student7, I disagree. The Public and media reactions section is all about the public and media's reactions, and if this case has been significantly compared to the O. J. Simpson murder trial (which it has), then this information should be included in that section. Of course it is the POV of the public and media; the whole section is about the POV of the public and media, which is perfectly acceptable. Including such information is not about inflaming anything. It is about accurately covering the aftermath. Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, you're in the wrong place. I recommend that you take it to WP:NPOVN. Actually, I recommend that you drop the whole thing and come back in a couple of years when nobody cares. But if you don't want to wait that long, then take it to NPOVN. There's nothing in this conversation that is actually about improving this page. Use WP:Dispute resolution, not the "re-write the guideline to support my view" game, to resolve your dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think my point has been missed. What I'm trying to say is that sticking 10 citations at the end of a sentence with weasel words isn't justified. For example:

Many people had positive reactions to the event.

Joe Schmoe, Jane Doe, and John Q. Public had positive reactions to the event.

A lot of content in the article is similar to the first sentence. Just because there are citations and the end does not compensate for the lack of attributions. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I disagree that this is off-topic and doesn't help improve this page. It does help...because it shows that there is a misunderstanding about what is laid out in WP:Weasel words and that it needs to be fixed.

Dream out loud, I still disagree with you. What you state makes no sense because you make it seem as though the word "many," "some" or "others" can never be used in relation to people and that we must always name each and every person. Or just leave it as "people" instead of as "many people," "some people" or "others." You are completely neglecting the instances when that cannot be done. Such as the fact that most women only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation; this is backed up by reliable source after reliable source and there are no reliable sources to dispute it. Should we just leave it as "women only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation"? No, because that makes it seem as though all women only achieve orgasm this way. Sources don't say "all." They say "most." And of course the sources don't specify who all these women are. And even if they did, it would be pretty idiotic to list all these women. Even more so because they are no-names.

Since it seems we will be getting no help here, I am transporting this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, where help is usually given to an issue that may signal that a rewrite of a guideline is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not neglecting any instances here. In cases such as the fact about female orgasms (which is really random by the way), you still need to put an attribution. Weasel words can be used as long as there is an attribution. Obviously, it's not possible to attribute each person who makes that statement, but it's necessary to attribute each source. "Many people believe women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation" is not acceptable. Because the reader will ask themselves, "Well who says that's true?" And also, "Who are these people making these claims?" Are they sexperts, doctors, just random sexually active people with no formal sex-related education? What is acceptable, however, would be something like "According to a 2002 study in The Journal of Sex Research, many doctors believe that women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation" would be perfectly acceptable. That's what we need. Who these people are and the source it came from. Not each and every person making these claims. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are neglecting instances. You say, "Obviously, it's not possible to attribute each person who makes that statement..." Uh, yeah, that is exactly my point. Your argument makes no sense because each and every person cannot be mentioned or attributed. Sometimes it is a matter of "most" or "some," "minority" or "majority," etc. You say "necessary to attribute each source." I say, "What?" That's the same thing as saying that each and every person should be attributed, because you are saying that each and every source must be mentioned through text. Well, that is wrong. In the same way that each and every person cannot always be mentioned through text, the same goes for sources. Sometimes sources are split, and it is perfectly acceptable to say "some sources report this" and "other sources reports that," especially if there are too many sources involved. It's called summarizing. We don't need a name or linkfarm. Sometimes the sources are unanimous on a topic, as they are on clitoral orgasms being the only way that most women achieve orgasm. Nowhere did I say it is stated that "Many people believe women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation." It's not about what "many people believe." It's a matter of what consistent research has shown. It is reported as fact that most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation (because the clitoris is homologous to the penis). It's not about "what many people believe." Female orgasms being random is irrelevant. It's a good point, as is everything else I stated, which is also backed up others at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. That is were you should be responding, since editors here feel this is not the place to discuss this, and since there is no need to respond in two places. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream out loud, you probably need to read the documentation for that template. It has apparently restricted its use to unsourced statements since the template's creation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Weasel Words" - Caution or Prohibition?

The article Campaign for "santorum" neologism (as currently titled) is highly contentious, has been a focus of Jimbo attention commencing here and has already spawned an RfC/U and possible Arbcom intervention. Understandably, the actual language employed is a subject of intense scrutiny and debate from 2 opposing viewpoints in the lengthy and ongoing article talk. The article was tagged with a {{Weasel}} objection and, subsequently, 2 {{who}} tags were appended to 2 phrases in the lead paragraph. A talk section was established to reach consensus resolution on the specific {{who}} objections and another to address resolution of the article tag itself. A question on the latter for those who may be versed in this issue...

Some editors contend that WP:WEASEL is prohibitive and that non-specific wording, where challenged, can be legitimately struck unless rectified by the addition of language to increase specificity. My contention is that non-specific language, when the language is consensus developed and acceptable, can be perfectly legitimate under WP:WEASEL. Comments from editors particularly versed in this subject are solicited and would be most welcome in the designated article talk section...or here if anyone is more inclined. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: I also listed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. My best guess to solicit informed viewpoints was here but further exposure in whatever forum might be productive is most welcome. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think JakeInJoisey actually made up the claim that other editors are taking WTA as prohibitive. JakeInJoisey said on the article talk page "IMHO, your interpretation of WP:WEASEL as some mandate for specificity is erroneous," which no one had said, certainly not myself. He also says, above, "My contention is that non-specific language, when the language is consensus developed and acceptable, can be perfectly legitimate under WP:WEASEL" and again no one is contending otherwise: rather, when non-specific language is actually challenged, and therefore not in accordance with full consensus, we need to look closely. My contention would be that per WP:BURDEN, non-specific language needs sourcing if challenged. WP:WEASEL is just a way of helping editors notice when we may need better sourcing or better adherence to sources, as well as a call to good writing. In this specific case, it has been demonstrated that the material in question can be well-written without weasel wording. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll not debate the specifics relative to an ongoing article language dispute here. That's for the article talk and wholly inappropriate here. (note to interested editors: I had also immediately posted this query to the article talk as an advisory). Even assuming that my comments specific to the article talk referenced were erroneous (they, IMHO, are not, and any editor is free to draw their own conclusions), that wouldn't negate the premise of the question on which I'm seeking informed opinion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to debate article specifics, but the question was based at least in part on an erroneous assumption about what I meant. Above, I clarified my position, so that others may respond to the real issue at hand, rather than your take on it. I didn't challenge it when you put words in my mouth on the talk page ("mandate"), but since you brought it here, I have to correct. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is forum shopping. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• As I have yet to receive any uninvolved, informed input on my question here, I have reposted this question to the superior MOS talk page. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To add a voice in support of Becritical and common sense: Sometimes we are required to be "non-specific", because the sources themselves are non-specific. If the reliable sources say "Some apples are green", you can hardly expect the editor to magically know what specific percentage of apples are red. Even if it's actually known, specificity may not be appropriate. If the point of the paragraph is to say that apples come in different colors, then a good editor is not going to say that "34.4643% of the applies in the 2009 commercial crop by weight were green" merely because it's sometimes possible to be that specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Having twice read your comment WhatamIdoing, you appear to be supporting MY position, albeit from a slightly different perspective. Be that as it may, the discussion has commenced at MOS talk...to which you are cordially invited to contribute. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words without lack of citations?

On this page weasel words are described as being words used with a lack of citations. However according to Weasel word, weasel words have a substantially broader meaning. All words that are intentionally trying to mislead the reader may be considered weasel words by that page, and it explains it quite well. We cannot have citations for every single word. There is already a well-established citation-needed tag for words that are not cited, it seems to me that weasel words are more related to the NPOV policy than the citations one.

So I think that this page is at best incomplete in its treatment of the concept of weasel words, and it would be much better if people were directed to the page Weasel word rather than this one when they click on the Weasel word tag in an article. A person clicks on the "weasel words" tag and they end up directed to something that doesn't even have weasel words as a heading or explain weasel words. So I therefore propose that people should be directed to the full Weasel word page after clicking on that tag. Anonywiki (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That might indeed be a good idea. However, the well-intentioned parenthetical you added to the present page conveyed no useful information and has been reverted.—DCGeist (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by its own rules and guidelines. But it does point people to the article on weasel words, while also saying that they "may disguise a biased view." Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Our WP:WEASEL subsection deals primarily with the sub-class of weasel words that aren't covered in other sections on this page. It's meant to be a memorable shortcut for this problem, not to give you a complete and encyclopedic understanding of the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The section already links to the article on weasel words. Perhaps its just an issue of giving it prominence? I certainly oppose the redirection of an issue tag to anything but policy articles, because those articles are subject to much less strict consensus rules that policy and guideline articles. However, it is true that the section does a bad job of defining "weasel words" in a general sense. Perhaps boldness is called for?--Cerejota (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Did some changes to give prominence to the definition of the term (as it is slang) and to wikilink to NPOV, which is what the opposition to weasel words stems from.--Cerejota (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No. There's no need to give more prominence to the term "weasel words", and no justification for disrupting the consistent formatting of the page. The new paragraph devoted to "death"/"murder"/"killing" was simply profligate—the relevant principles are already clearly established on the page.—DCGeist (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can accept the "breaking the pretty layout" argument, however it is clear in this thread that there is need expressed to resolve the ambiguity of the section by given prominence to the term, and why are these words avoided. That issue of substance, not aesthetic, should be adressed.

The stuff on death I examine in an RFC below. --Cerejota (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Is "death" generally an euphemism of "murder" or a NPOV presentation of a killing that has not resulted in conviction.

As per WP:EUPHEMISM, we should avoid using euphemisms. I agree wholeheartedly.

However, in recent discussions on article naming, WP:EUPHEMISM kept coming up as an argument as to why an article on a violent death should be titled "Murder of X" instead of "Death of X". I do not view "death" as an euphemism of "murder", but rather as two different things in an encyclopedic sense: one is a descriptor, the other is a category of death that describes a case were someone is found guilty of the crime of murder.

The goal of this RFC, however is not to validate my argument for "Death" instead of "Murder" in a global fashion, which I think is an argument to make in each article based on the specific merits of each case. It is however an appeal to clarify if indeed "death" is generally considered an euphemism for "murder" or not. As such, I propose we add this line:

“ "Death" generally is not an euphemism for "murder", which is generally understood to have a different meaning to "death". ”

If this is considered profligate and possible leading to further expansion of the section with further contrasts between, I propose a general clarification, which includes the "death/murder" example.

To wit:

“ Often, words might seem like euphemisms that are not generally considered to be euphemisms, but acceptable synonyms or even having related but different meanings. For example, "death" is not generally an euphemism for "murder", which is generally understood to have a different meaning to "death". ”

I suggest that for this discussion, support for the first formulation, implies support for the second, but not the other way around. Please keep that in mind when commenting, and closing admin please keep it in mind when closing. Of course, you can always argue that WP:EUPHEMISM is fine as it is.--Cerejota (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• No, this is not a good idea. I dislike prescribing policy so specifically - and in this case I think it is incorrect, and too broad. And indeed violates the intent of WP:EUPHEMISM which is to avoid dumbing-down (or violating NPOV) by switching "Death" for "Murder". In many cases switching "Death" in for "Murder" is using it as a euphemism, and this clarification only gives such actions validity. If someone's death can be reliably classed as murder we should always prefer that descriptor under the terms of neutrality. That no one has been convicted does not at all mean it is non-neutral to term it murder. In unsolved cases if law enforcement are investigating the death as a murder then that is clear. In cases where a current court case is occurring we can discuss the case on its merits; although I think we can tend to prefer the clearest title w/o prejudice in most cases. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) "Death", by definition, is always an accurate term to describe the state of a murder victim. Given that, it is not a particularly good example of a euphemism for the purposes of our page.

(2) The idea that a conviction is required to describe a homicide as a "murder" is simply silly. That notion flies in the face of how English is used in the real world.

(3) What is really being debated here is a matter of editorial judgment. Especially in the context of a specific article title, "death" may well be (a) less informative and (b) less effective at conveying the notability of the subject than "murder". But again, that's not a matter of "euphemism"; that's a matter of effective encyclopedic composition.

(4) Insofar as anyone still thinks that "death" is euphemistic in the sort of context that is being discussed here, the relevant principle is already stated on our page: "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided". No addition is necessary.—DCGeist (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• How much does this question have to do with Wikipedia talk:Article titles#.22Death_of.22_or_.22Murder_of.22 and related disputes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely related. I think the death v murder issue is a legit AT issue but that should be discussed interms of COMMONNAME and NPOV#NAMING, not euphemism.--Cerejota (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Contentious labels

I should like to propose a change to this section, specifically the usage of terrorist. If majority of sources call a group terrorist then so should we. I bring this up as recently on the Al-Qaeda article an editor removed terrorist from the description of the group saying it was opinion. I have not seen any sources which dispute Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group. Does anyone have any suggestions as to the best way to reword this? Assuming people agree of course :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It already says (with my emphasis added here) "[such labels] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject ..." so if a multiple reliable sources call a specific group "terrorist" so can we. Possibly we need to remove or reword the last bit "use in-text attribution". Perhaps it should be more like "... be sure to cite specific reliable sources' usage of the term". (Although maybe that's already implied.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. For purposes of good encyclopedic composition, in-text attribution is not always necessary or appropriate in such cases, but citation of good sources always is. While we wait for other opinions to come in, I'll ponder possible rewordings as well.—DCGeist (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right about the "in-text attribution" bit. If you've got thousands of sources that use this label, then "According to Alice and Bob and Chris and Daisy and Edwin and Frances and Ginny and Harry and Ivy and Jane and..." is completely inappropriate. In-text attribution is appropriate for minority viewpoints or when only a small number of sources use a label. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important that this prohibition is not removed or waterdown. It is summed up quite nicely in several places what the problem is with terrorist. One can find dozens of examples of reliable sources calling someone a terrorist, because the reliable sources are biased. Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Lots of reliable sources stated that he was. Was the IRA a terrorist organisation? What makes the IRA of 1919 not terrorist but 1921 or 1969 terrorist?

See Terrorism#Pejorative use for other examples and a quote:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

How is it that as late as 1986 the judiciary in the USA could accept the defence "political offense exception" by an IRA volunteer in the Quinn v. Robinson:

Quinn was originally charged with one count of murder of a police constable, three counts of sending letter bombs in the London area, two counts of causing explosions in the London area, one count of placing an explosive device in the London area, and one count of conspiracy with six other persons to cause explosions in the United Kingdom. The request for extradition on all but the murder and conspiracy charges was withdrawn by the United Kingdom prior to the hearing before the magistrate.

...

Politically motivated violence, carried out by dispersed forces and directed at private sector institutions, structures, or civilians, is often undertaken—like the more organized, better disciplined violence of preceeding revolutions—as part of an effort to gain the right to self-government. See Politics of Extradition, supra p. 31, at 632-33. We believe the tactics that are used in such internal political struggles are simply irrelevant to the question whether the political offense exception is applicable.

I can't help thinking that the Papers in the USA would tend to call people that commit such acts against Americans terrorists, yet during most of the troubles American papers went out of their way not to call IRA volunteers terrorists and the law in the USA back that point of view.

Also consider what the historian Donald Bloxham wrote, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime." He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'pedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorization." (Addison, Paul & Crang, Jeremy A. (eds. 2006) Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, Pimlico, page 180).

What it comes down to is that the use of the use of the terms terrorist and terrorism express a moral POV and we use inline attribution for POVs. -- PBS (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In practical terms what is the benefit of using the term terrorist with out attribution? How does it improve understanding of the perpetrators of an act unless they themselves use the term. The British bombed Germany with the express intention of undermining German moral does that make the members of the RAF "terrorists" should such a label be placed in every article that mentions Bomber command? There are plenty of reliable German sources that use the term so we are free to do so if we want to. The problem is that usage of words like terrorist in articles is it comes under systemic bias of Wikipedia editors and it has little to do with sources. -- PBS (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK look at it like this, Al-Qaeda are a terrorist group, all reliable sources describe them as such. Should we actually then write when a source is asked for that Paul Wilkinson "has described them as terrorist?" does so obvious a fact actually need attribution? I am copying this over from the RSN board ""Paul Wilkinson is Emeritus Professor of International Relations and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV) at the University of St Andrews. He is author of several books on terrorism issues and was co-founder of the leading international journal, Terrorism and Political Violence." I previewed the 2006 edition of the same text, Wilkinson makes as a fundamental claim in his introduction and chapters that Al-Qaeda is a network, that Al-Qaeda is terrorist, and that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist network. Routledge is (in part) an academic publisher, and this book was published as an academic text. While the claim that Al-Qaeda is a "terrorist network" may be an opinion, E/Prof Paul Wilkinson is precisely the kind of academic entitled to have his opinion on whether Al-Qaeda is a terrorist network treated as the scholarly academic opinion. reliable for this use. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)" I am of the opinion that if majority of sources call a group terrorist then attribution is not really needed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that during the 1980s many American organisations that today call people that attack the USA "terrorists" but refused to call the Provos a terrorist organisation and men found guilty in British courts of law of belonging to that organisation terrorists? Do you really think that the first paragraph in the lead of the Provisional Irish Republican Army article would be improved by substituting the word "paramilitary" with the word "terrorist"? There are 1,000 of articles in reliable sources that make such a claim, so it comes down to an editorial choice not an issue of reliable sources. Or for the article on Martin McGuinness or Nelson Mandela to emphasise (by mentioning in the first paragraph of the article) that they are convicted terrorists (again there are lots of reliable sources that make such claims). If not, then why for articles on some groups and people and not others? It seems to me better that we are consistent on this and if someone is of the opinion that a group is a terrorist group then it should be attributed in the text so that the information is presented without a bias: as is done in the PROVO article in the lead with "The organisation remains classified as a proscribed terrorist group in the UK and as an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland" and inside the article with a section dedicated to "Categorisation". BTW the advantage of using the IRA as an example is that it is one of the few conflicts where most editors who grow up in an English speaking culture can appreciate the nuances of this debate as it is still a divisive issue in the English speaking world. -- PBS (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Low register

What about low register expressions? I've recently come to notice the phrase "also known as" in many articles, often used in place of higher register and more accurate expressions like "also referred to" or "officially called" (e.g. when giving the official name of an organization or event).

Imho, such frequently used low register expressions should be decidedly discouraged somewhere in the MoS, although WTA aims at expressions that are problematic for a different reason.

Opinions on this? Where should I take this? (Posted it here since I couldn't think of a better place.) --195.14.223.205 (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Also known as" (though not "AKA") seems perfectly fine in terms of tone. Certainly more accurate phrases are useful "Frederick William Rolfe, better known as Baron Corvo, and also calling himself 'Frederick William Serafino Austin Lewis Mary Rolfe', ... " for example conveys more information. While we should avoid slang and lazy speech, we should also avoid using any word that could be replaced with a simpler one, and extending the idea of register, definitely avoid such "falsetto" expressions as "persons" for "people" and use of litotes in articles (though I not uncommonly use it in talk pages). Such phraseology makes the articles harder to read, albeit only slightly, and presents difficulties in maintaining a consisitant tone throughout the piece. Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Ok, so let's make it about accuracy then. The specific example of "(also) known as" should definitely be discussed somewhere in the MoS though, since there are many, many examples of inaccurate (and yes, also quite lazy) usage of that phrase (e.g. [30], [31]). --213.196.219.66 (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Making love" is presumptuous?

The word "presumptuous" might literally mean "something causing a presumption" but its common meaning is actually "snobbishly rude". Because of this I don't think it's the right word to describe why that particular euphemism is wrong. A better explanation would be that it is too vague and a potential source of misunderstanding; not only does "make love" assume that actual love exists, but the change of meaning for the phrase from "pitch woo" to "have sex" hasn't yet reached every form of English. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the use of the word presumptuous here because the actual meaning is "Going beyond what is right or proper because of an excess of self-confidence or arrogance" - in this case self-confidence in one's opinion of the facts being true. For example - forgive the extreme example - a rapist might somehow in his twisted mind think that he is "making love" but the victim certainly doesn't. It is all about point of view. If a third party witness to a copulation (i.e. for brief example let us put aside the concept of ORIGINAL RESEARCH and assume the witness to be the WRITER of the ARTICLE) - if the writer - is unable to discern whether the act was one of "making love" or simply the broader term "having sexual intercourse", the better phrase is "having sex" because with the latter the writer does not presumptuously assume to know what was in the hearts and minds of the participants.Garth of the Forest (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And if, in the course of this, we educate some Wikipedians as to the actual and proper meaning of the word presumptuous, all the better.—DCGeist (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Funny pictures

I don't think the funny pictures add anything of value to the page and are misplaced in the Manual of Style. All of those should imho be removed. --78.35.239.129 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and suspect that you might be in the minority. The saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" definitely applies here. For example, on my very first visit to this page, upon seeing the "weasel words" picture, I thought - what a great way to demonstrate the concept of NPOV. To the majority of editors striving to maintain a NPOV, weasel words are undesirable, but to a weasel, they are highly desirable. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And not only is a picture worth a thousand words, but the "funny" quotient helps reminds us not only that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but also hints at our first and best rule: Ignore all rules!!!—DCGeist (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, the word terrorist must be used carefully. I like the discussion around this and how it demonstrates how we are often guilty of filtering information (either consciously or unconsciously) for both ourselves and others through our own world views. If my ancestors are from England or I in some way identify with "Queen and country" then it is easier to think of the IRA as having all been terrorists. If, on the other hand, I identify with the decades - nay, centuries - old Republican cause to reunite Ulster with the rest of Ireland after years and years of foreign occupation - I might think more of the IRA as having been "freedom fighters". Another example: those same ethnic groups of Afghanis that were fighting the communists during the foreign occupation by the Russians were commonly referred to as "freedom fighters" in the West during the Reagan era (and later), but when the same ethnic groups (i.e. their sons, et al) took up arms against occupying Western troops they were more commonly known (at least in the West) as "terrorists" or "insurgents" or "Taliban" where the word "Taliban" is often used inaccurately to basically refer to anyone with a gun that might have one time been used or might in future be expected to be used against a soldier of [insert appropriate NATO member country name here]. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Reported" as synonyms for said

I would like to list "reported" as a neutral synonym for "said" on this page because, to me, it does not imply truth (as with "revealed"), nor does it suggest inaccuracy (as with "claimed"), nor does it imply diligence (as with "observed"). Agree, disagree? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 13:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In the case of news agencies I think it would be fine since they are literally reporting. I don't think however that in other cases it would always be neutral, but rather I think it would fit into this list:

To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, surmised, or reported can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

For instance, if someone was making the conspiratorial claim that "The HAARP is currently causing the flooding in the midwest" then describing them as "reporting that the HAARP was causing the flooding in the midwest" would improperly imply a "degree of ... carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable."AerobicFox (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Citizens United decision makes it clear that other organizations enjoy the same first amendment rights as news agencies; that would argue that these other organizations have just as much right to "report" things as news agencies, right?  :-) —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of the legal status; it's a question of how readers will understand the word. If we say that Alice Expert was reported to have said "The Moon orbits the Earth", then the readers will guess that we're talking about some sort of mainstream media or "news report", with a certain amount of typical journalistic standards and editorial control. If that's what we mean, then it's probably okay.

There are other uses (similar to saying "Alice Expert was alleged to have said") that we might not accept. Because it's complicated and context-dependent, it's therefore probably not the clearest example of the problem. (I've no strong objection to adding it to the list of "noted, observed," etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Those examples pair "report" with "said". I am imagining the former on its own, as we do with the other synonyms of "said", as in "The company reports that the Moon orbits the Earth". To me that's neutral in tone where, for example, "The company claims that the Moon orbits the Earth" or "The company proves that the Moon orbits the Earth" are not. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that we should endorse reported as a neutral term. It can be used neutrally, but it can also be used in very biased ways. If we list it as neutral, then some <fill in your favorite term of abuse> is going to believe that he has an unlimited, irrevocable endorsement for any and all possible uses of the word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a good standard. But, is it the case that "reported" is easier to abuse than "said"? Would you give an example sentence where "reported" is used inappropriately in a way that "said" could not similarly be used? Thank you —Quantling (talk | contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's imagine an astronaut named Alfred upon returning to Earth states "While I was up there I saw aliens surrounding the ship, prepared to take me to the their leader at any point".

and now here are three examples of how this could be portrayed differently

1. Critics of Alfred contend that strange comments often perceived by others as absurdest humor, is actually Alfred going mad, citing a case when upon returning to earth he reported "While I was up there I saw aliens surrounding the ship, prepared to take me to the their leader at any point".
2. Critics of Alfred contend that strange comments often perceived by others as absurdest humor, is actually Alfred going mad, citing a case when upon returning to earth he joked "While I was up there I saw aliens surrounding the ship, prepared to take me to the their leader at any point".
3. Critics of Alfred contend that strange comments often perceived by others as absurdest humor, is actually Alfred going mad, citing a case when upon returning to earth he said "While I was up there I saw aliens surrounding the ship, prepared to take me to the their leader at any point".

In situation 1 the use of "reported" implies that Alfred was acting in a more official capacity, supporting the claims of the critics who contend he is going mad. In example 2 the use of the word "joked" attempts to dispel the critics concerns by dismissing the possibility of his statement being made in serious. In this case "said" is the appropriate choice. Since "reported" has connotations it is by definition non-neutral, and as above people will always find a way to abuse that.AerobicFox (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I get it. Although "reported" does not have the article evaluating the statement made by Alfred (as "alleged" might attack, and "proved" might support), "reported" does suppose that Alfred evaluates his own statement to be true, whereas "said" makes no such implication. However, the same could be said for "according to", which is currently listed as equivalent to "said". A separate sentence calling attention to this nuance of article evaluation vs. speaker evaluation might be appropriate for both "reported" and "according to". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

How about something like:

Avoid "reported" and "according to" unless it is clear that the speaker intends that the attributed statement is to be understood as true.

—Quantling (talk | contribs) 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing, above. I think "reported" has the same connotative problems as the other "synonyms for said". The joke analogy is interesting, but the use of "noted", "pointed out", "reported", and so on, are problematic regardless of whether the person who "said" something thinks it's true, or not.

Postpostmod (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Numerous

In an edit comment I just claimed that "numerous" smells like a WP:WEASEL, and replaced it by "various" suggesting "many". But apparently there is no section here for "numerous" and "countless". Disclaimers: DEnglish user, the en-connotations for "numerous" or "countless" might not match de "zahllos". My math background, where "finite" and "infinite" are very different concepts, also doesn't help me to tolerate "numerous" when it's only an unknown finite number. If it is not only me maybe add a section about this issue. –89.204.137.160 (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Countless" is hyperbole and should be avoided. Uncountable is the technical term. The problems with "numerous" and "many" is that they are capable of being weasel words, or just lazy words, but that an expert in the subject may not be using them in a weaselly way. Moreover the nature of the word changes with context. It has been suggested in the past that explicit cites are the solution to this "... many sources^{[1][2][3][4[5][6][7][8][9]...} say that this is a bad idea..." One drawback is that it is not uncommon^[weasel] for editors to remove what they consider excess cites. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC).

Two points:

• We're not trying to provide a comprehensive list of every single word that could be misused. (See WP:BEANS for one reason why we made this choice.)
• The purpose of the list is to identify words that might be misused. These words are not banned and may be appropriate. If the source uses a vague word like "numerous" or "many", then it's not weaselly to follow the source. Sometimes^[weasel] we don't have a significant^[weasel] level of precision because zero sources provide precise details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Even a specific number can be wrong. For example, the opening sentence of Indian cuisine reads: "Indian cuisine consists of thousands of regional cuisines which date back thousands of years." What justification is there for saying "thousands" of regional cuisines? This is only meaningful if there is some reasonably clear definition of the boundaries of a "cuisine". Secondly, "date back thousands of years" is questionable, too. Of course all cuisines are continuations of historical predecessors -- but is there any evidence that the regional cuisines of today are related to distinct cuisines of thousands of years ago? One could equally meaninglessly -- say that "The Germanic languages consist of thousands of regional dialects which date back thousands of years". --Macrakis (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You

Can we make an entry for the second person (you/your...) etc? Or where could I find a project page that talks about it? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:YOU. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Lack of comparandum

I sometimes come across WP articles saying that something is "better" without specifying what it is better than. For example:

• "The two core advantages of n-gram models..." in n-gram -- advantages compared to what?
• Limited_liability_company#Advantages -- some of the individual subsections clarify the comparandum, others don't
• Message-oriented_middleware#Advantages -- no comparandum at all. The comparanda I can think of are having application software provide its own message handling -- or relying only on synchronous communication.

Do others think it would be worthwhile to mention this case in the MOS? This section seems like the best place, though "words to watch" doesn't quite cover it. I'd think a template could be useful too. Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In each case I think there is an implied "... compared to alternatives ...", eg (in your examples) other models, other company structures, other communication protocols. In some cases (not necessarily those cited above) clarification may be required where the "other" is not obvious, but I don't think we'd necessarily have better articles if we suggested in MOS that the comparandum should always be stated explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly do not know in any of the above three cases what they're talking about, and would actually find it useful -- not just as a matter of form, but substantively -- to have the comparanda mentioned. Of course, the above three cases could simply be tagged as {{citation needed}}, but it goes beyond that. A comparison without a comparandum is vacuous and unfalsifiable, because surely just about anything is better than something. In that way, it really is quite similar to phrases like "It is said that..."{{who}} (maybe the author's roommate said it -- in which case we don't care). --Macrakis (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Resting place

Many biographical infoboxes have |resting_place= parameter, so I removed it as an example to avoid, from this guideline. I been reverted, with the edit summary "there is no confusion"; yet there is clearly evidence of such on the talk page for {{infobox person}}}. There are many other examples we can use, so we should avoid this ambiguous case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed away

Apologies if this conversation has been had before. May I query "passed away" being listed as a euphemism? For example, in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary the third definition of "pass", after move and depart, is die. almost-instinct 14:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your reasoning here. Are you claiming that dictionaries don't document euphemistic senses of words? That would be a pretty sorry excuse for a dictionary...! --Macrakis (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Die is given as one of the principal meanings of "pass". "Kick the bucket" on the other hand is not in the dictionary at all. I've a serious query here. Why is "pass away" a euphemism? almost-instinct 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "pass away" is that it is ambiguous. As you mentioned the third definition of pass (in Webster) is "die", so the reader might think we mean the first or second definitions. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary "pass away" can also mean "relinquish, surrender, (rights etc.)". But if we say "die" is not likely to be misinterpreted. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point: we don't want ambiguity. However, to use the example that I noticed: Anne Sharp lived with her daughter in West Linton, Peeblesshire. She passed away on August 25, 2011. There's nothing ambiguous here; but because of our rule against "passed away" this has now been changed to "die". My wondering why "passed away" is listed as a euphemism remains. Are we putting it on a level with "slipped away", "breathed her last", "bought the farm" and so on? (Btw, die may be the third definition, but its the third of fifty meanings given by Websters for the verb form alone) almost-instinct 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So according to Websters first/second definition for "passed", Anne Sharp moved away from her daughter on August 25, 2011 (and now lives somewhere else). This is a perfectly legitimate reading of your example, using your dictionary's definition - but it has a completely different meaning (to "die"). It is an excellent example of why the term "passed away" is ambiguous. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Kick the bucket" is defined in the OED as "to die", as is "to pass away", "to pass", "to shuffle off", "to meet one's Maker", "to croak", "to expire", "to go to Heaven", etc. etc. Just because the sense is documented doesn't mean it is not a euphemism (though I admit that some of the above are labelled as "figurative" or "slang"). It appears that in some circles in the US, it is taboo to say that someone has "died". Those who believe in an afterlife seem to prefer to say that the person has "passed" into the afterlife; obviously that is not WP:NPOV. There are plenty of reliable sources documenting the euphemistic nature of "passed away" etc., e.g. Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, Forbidden words: taboo and the censoring of language snippet, John Algeo, Thomas Pyles, The Origins and Development of the English Language snippet, Louise Pound, "American Euphemisms for Dying, Death, and Burial: An Anthology" American Speech 11:3 (October 1936) JSTOR 10.2307/452239. --Macrakis (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's not Wikipedia's job to satisfy the fringe views of dwellers "in some circles in the US" (or anywhere). Stick to the clearest, unarguable words please. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pass away" is a euphemism in the sense that it is a non-neutral formulation that people choose when they are unhappy about someone's death, or pretend to be so, and therefore stress that the person died in relatively peaceful manner. Ambiguity is clearly a red herring. It's almost never ambiguous when used in the sense of dying, although it doesn't always fit. Ambiguity is definitely not a problem, but the lack of neutrality is. If anyone "passes away" for us, then we must draw the line somewhere. I guess Mother Teresa would qualify for "passing away" and Adolf Hitler would not. But how about Richard Nixon? Joseph McCarthy? Augosto Pinochet? Stalin? For each of these, if they are anywhere near the border line, some editors will claim that they must be treated like this or that other person. Hans Adler 21:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that an English language learner would find the phrase ambiguous or confusing. I doubt that native speakers would, though. I still believe that it's a euphemism. Its use is motivated by a desire to find a soft way to say something that is (presumably) unpleasant to the reader. That's pretty much the definition of a euphemism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Macrakis for supply references that it is a euphemism. Given the lie of the Wikipedia landscape, that pretty much ends the conversation for me. Personally (and irrelevently) I don't use it as a euphemism, but just as part range of words/phrases to mean death. As Hans says, one wouldn't use it for A. Hitler's violent end. I like having options. Anyway, pip pip, almost-instinct 08:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use "passed away" for "died" just because it is a euphemism. It is still unambiguously clear. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I still assert that "passed away" in ambiguous, per the example in my post of 2011-12-10, 20:28 (UTC+8). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With some due respect, your example is utter nonsense. Nowadays "passed away" alone always means "died". And as for Merriam Webster dictionary: It give the meaning of "cheerful person" for the word "gay"! Do I need to elaborate how out-of-date this meaning is? Fleet Command (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Applying dictionary definitions in an arbitrary way is not something people do when reading a text. The simple fact that other meanings of a word exist - and alternative meanings do exist for almost all words, just open a dictionary - does not make the usage of words ambiguous. Nobody is going to confuse "The ominous clouds passed away without having unloaded their rainy contents" with "Churchill passed away after a short sick-bed". It is just not going to happen. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's something being left unsaid here. To write "died" takes four keystrokes, while "passed away" requires requires eleven. I think it's up to those promoting the use of the latter term to justify its use when we have a simpler, unarguably unambiguous word to use. Is "passed away" somehow nicer? Encyclopaedias don't do nice. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is that Wikipedia should use the shorter word?! Somehow I don't remember WP:SHORT or WP:LAZY being about this... Debresser (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No. My argument is somewhat more complex than that, but not much more. In fact, it was more a question than an argument. I really thought most editors would be able to read and comprehend it. Care to answer it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say something that has been left unsaid so far. Wikipedia policies and guidelines should reflect consensus. And I see a definite lack of consensus in this specific case. Debresser (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have therefore asked for input from the village pump. Debresser (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So just because you couldn't deal with my post and want to go forum shopping, we all have to repeat ourselves over there now, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong completely. 1. I asked people there to comment here. 2. This is called "asking for input", and is completely legitimate. Your accusation of forumshopping is, in fact, quite offensive. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very careless with words. You misrepresented what I said, either deliberately or through lack of attention, didn't apologise, and now demand on my Talk page that I apologise to you. No. Sorry. Won't happen. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Let the discussion be the discussion. Debresser (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that all English speakers would understand 'passed away'. I'm convinced they would all understand 'died'. I would always replace passed away with died. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that as well as being a euphemism, "passed away" is also an idiom, and WP:IDIOM quite reasonably advises us: "Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Mitch Ames (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And I would add, on a related point, that "passed away"--like most euphemisms--is a verbose replacement for a perfectly good, perfectly clear, perfectly neutral, and terse word. Need it be said that verbose writing is poor writing? DocKino (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

First, "pass away" is phrasal verb, not an idiom; hence WP:IDIOM does not apply. Second, English speakers perfectly understand the meaning of "pass away" since all of them read it in elementary school. Third, "pass away" is the polite and formal form of "die"; do I even need to mention that Wikipedia:Civility is one of the non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia? Or is it not obvious that to be civil does not only mean avoiding swear words? Last but not least, no, verbose writing is not automatically poor writing; on the contrary, it is often necessary to write more to contribute to the accuracy, comprehensibility, quality and style. For instance, in Wikipedia, we never use the verb "f***" in the text of a good article, but rather, we use "to have an affair". Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please reread our WP:Civility policy, because you evidently do not understand it. It does not guide the composition of our encyclopedic content; rather, it "is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact." Much of the rest of your comment is specious, as well: Some phrasal verbs are most certainly idioms. "Pass away" is in no way more "formal" than "die". And your attempt to draw an analogy between "die" and "f***" is outrageous. DocKino (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Passed away is used, be it as a euphemism, in more formal contexts. That is a fact. And I personally do see the passed away <-> f*** analogy. And the point of the WP:CIVIL argument was that if we need to be civil amongst ourselves, then why not show our readers the same courtesy? Debresser (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect about "formal contexts." There is no context more formal than a medical examiner's report, and I assure you, those use "to die", not "to pass away." More importantly...

Our obligation to our readers is to inform them. We avoid needlessly offending them by avoiding obscenities such as "f***" except where they clearly serve the mission to inform. We do not treat our readers as if they are incapable of handling straightforward concepts and words such as "death". That sort of attitude is simply out of place for an encyclopedia writer. There is nothing in the world "uncivil" about using plain language to describe plain facts—in fact, that's what we're about here. DocKino (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion and the parallel one at the village pump show that consensus is not broad enough to have this in the guideline (which must reflect a broad consensus). Therefore I move this example be removed from there. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And I move it stays. You still haven't discussed my point that you so appallingly misrepresented up above. (Nor apologised for for that misrepresentation.) If you think I'm being confrontational here, perhaps I am, with the goal of getting people to actually Discuss this matter, reading carefully and acknowledging the points made by others. It's about improving the quality of Discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should stay. I also don't agree that "all of them read it in elementary school" is any any way accurate. I don't know if that's true in America, but I do know that not all English speakers learn English in an American elementary school. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely should stay. In addition to being a euphemism, it's folksy, informal, and somewhat patronizing. Nobody is offended by saying somebody "died". Can't believe anyone would make an issue of this.—Chowbok ☠ 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that this guideline should still oppose the phrase passed away, especially (IMO) for the sake of English language learners. This is a guideline, not an absolute rule: if you've got a good reason to ignore it, then you should.

I also seriously disagree with Debresser's claim that the VPP discussion shows no consensus. I count six editors there who oppose this phrase, and just one (Bermicourt) who supported it (with the caveat that it "shouldn't be overused", which is a pretty weak level of support). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Count another editor against "passed away". It's inprecise, it's "folksy," and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Why would we ever want to use this phrase? Because "died" is too harsh? We are not writing greeting cards or obituaries here... euphemisms like "passed away" have no place in formal writing, like that which you would expect to read in an encyclopedia. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 10:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)