Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

See also related discussions and archives:

• Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms
• Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms
• Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

RfC Terms that can introduce bias

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

---

Should we add a class of "Terms that can introduce bias", listing incorrect use of Arab and Arabic as an examplar?

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC). Batternut (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording would be:

Terms that can introduce bias

Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way. For example, do not substitute Arab or Arabic for Islamic, Moslem, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Moslem Arab is someone who is in both categories. Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.

Batternut (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For comparison, the current wording is

Easily confused terms

Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting.

For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic coffee and Arabian stallion, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is in both categories.

Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.

EEng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Background

• The RfC to remove related material from the main MoS page is archived here.
• Arab and Arabic are listed at Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words#A.
• Previous related discussions are above at § Arab, Arabic, Arabian and § Re-RfCing Arab/Arabic.

Comments on Terms that can introduce bias

• Weak oppose. I hesitate to recommend instruction creep of the MoS into political correctness when the issues are already covered by WP:NPOV, and incorrect use of Arabic etc can be dealt with per WP:FIXIT. Also, it seems to make a special case of Anti-Arabism over all the other -isms listed at List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. Although treating serious social issues, is this just watering down the MoS with anodyne platitudes? Batternut (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as the compromise reached in the above discussion, which was non-neutrally closed as "non-neutral" by its chief opponent (which I should probably revert), who then opened this new RfC just to oppose it. See WP:ONEHANDGIVES (at item no. 2) and WP:POINT. That said, it actually is a reasonable compromise, so I'll skip over doing anything about the above. "Nominator-opposer" Batternut's rationale for opposition is invalid: This is not "mak[ing] a special case of anti-Arabism", it's a general statement of principle illustrated with an example, which is what this page is for and how it is laid out in other sections. Additional examples could be added as needed, and Batternut even suggested an Irish one in the earlier discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - I do like the idea behind this... but I have to question whether Arab/Arabic vs Muslim/Islamic is the best example to use. Suggest we discuss other potential examples to see if we can agree on a better one. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support in principle. It is good advice for the ignorant, but whether it will penetrate the clueless is another question. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  Heh. None of our P&G do the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Soft oppose, seems like unnecessary instruction creep. Do we really need a guideline to say Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way? If something is wrong, fix it. The List of commonly misused English words seems sufficient to address the Arab/Arabic case. Alsee (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in the proposed form of words The examples given seems to have a particular socio-cultural bias. What's with the obsession over people with some connection to the middle east? This looks like a form of bias in itself. If we accept that "Terms that can introduce bias" are a problem, how about addressing a wider set of them? For example, I'm Australian, and in my country the major conservative political party is the Liberal Party, and I do a double take every time I see a (generally American) article use the word liberal to describe something quite different. And we know that word is used as a pejorative by many in the USA. That's just one example. Are we going to create a comprehensive list of such words? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Shortcut "MOS:CONFUSE" doesn't seem appropriate for this section. Is it needed, or would a different shortcut be better? Batternut (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me in the interim; very mnemonic for the keyword in the present heading. We don't have some other MoS section desperately vying for it. If we end up using something like "Terms that can introduce bias", then a shortcut like MOS:TERMBIAS might work better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Too tired to opine on the wording change, but I'd like to see more examples in the section (whatever the wording). EEng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• Cunard, Batternut, EEng#s: I agree with all points made under subheader "Easily confused terms." Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

#Editorialising

To a user who edits in British English- it seems amusing to see a heading spelled Editoriali(z)ing under words to avoid! ClemRutter (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As one Brit to another: why? Popcornduff (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Project space is an ecumenical zone where all spelling and usage faiths are welcomed into the communion, even to the extent of mixed marriages i.e. multiple modes on the same page. EEng 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that apply to humour on the Talk page? --ClemRutter (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and to humor as well. EEng 15:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutter:, have you read Oxford spelling? Doug Weller talk 18:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: not only that but royalties from OUP used to finance my family holidays. At one level, the debate is about whether the word was from a Greek root (most -izo words) or Latin root (as judged in 1929), this word is a newbie, hitting publishing in the 1940s- as the stem was from Latin so for Oxford consistency- the suffix should be latinate too. At another level, amusing.ClemRutter (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Weasel forever?

You don't think weasel words should be removed instead of just tagged and left there? EatenRiper (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EatenRiper, greetings. The EDIT button is an invitation for you and anyone else to jump in and help. Go ahead and boldly fix problems whenever you see them. You can remove any tags once they are no longer needed.
Tagging problems is allowed if someone only wants to make a quick edit, or if someone is unsure how to fix an issue. Complex or controversial problems may need to be tagged while seeking an agreeable solution with opposing editors. It's usually kinda lame for someone to add a tag instead of fixing a small problem themselves, although editors busy on New Page Patrol may add a weasel-tag if it would take a while to clean up a lot of weasel language. A New Page Patroller's time may be better spent dealing with more difficult problems and clearing out the backlog of unreviewed newly-created articles. Alsee (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

demonologists?

In a sentence like "Annabelle is a Raggedy Ann doll said by demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren to be haunted" we can't put scare quotes around demonologists, or say "self-described" or anything, we just have to pretend like that's a real thing? EatenRiper (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EatenRiper, well, this is one case where I can't object to "alleged." But, sure, go with "said." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and that article is on my watchlist, by the way, since I've seen that it is a contested topic and is sometimes subject to vandalism. At times, I'm tempted to remove it from watchlist because I have more important articles to worry about and don't want an extra distraction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

When claims are extraordinary, like “a doll can move, speak, and harm people” I don’t see any problem with using the word “claim”. In fact it is sometimes the most appropriate term. I don’t think we have a hard and fast rule that would force us to write “Alex Jones *said* John Podesta molested children at a pizza shop”. Also note that sources at our Ed and Lorraine Warren article describe them as self professed or self-taught demonologists, presumably to distinguish their status from religious orders that use such titles. So again, nothing wrong with using appropriate qualifiers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Alleged is clear that WP:BLP is one concern. When it's an allegation with regard to a BLP issue, we should be clear that it's an allegation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EatenRiper, I'll try to explain how we work. We deal with conflicting politics and religions and every just about controversy that exists. As I'm sure you know, debates on those issues often turn into endless and unproductive flamewars. So we don't get involved in those debates. We do not argue "truth" or pass judgement on "truth". Our personal opinions and judgement don't belong in articles. Instead our goal is to accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a topic, with conflicting views covered roughly in proportion of the presence of those views in Reliable Sources. That approach carries over to all topics. For example Flat Earth is "real" in that it's historically significant and people have written about it. However that doesn't mean all views are equal. A view or belief accepted by few people is called Fringe. We're not going to say that belief in a Flat Earth is stupid or kooky, but hopefully the Flat Earth article makes clear that the concept is obsolete and that it is almost universally rejected today. If someone calls themselves a demonologist, fine, we'll say that they call themselves a demonologist. Any reasonable reader hopefully knows that is loony. If we were to write that it's loony, the article would come across as unprofessional. That approach would explode badly if we started calling politicians "loony", no matter how badly some politicans deserve that label. Alsee (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Prodigy

Regarding this edit by Alsee, should "prodigy" be on the WP:PEACOCK list? After all, "child prodigy" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a genius or considered a genius? We note that Albert Einstein is considered to have been one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted like Einstein's genius is, but "prodigy" seems more objective. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion that led to this latest addition is seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using the term "chess prodigy". We also have an article on chess prodigy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Words to watch aren't banned or inherently illegitimate. I believe they are words which might easily be tossed around in a frivolous or puffery manner. If a child beats international chess grand masters, Reliable Chess sources will surely and widely classify them as a prodigy. And Wikipedia does describe them as prodigies, such as in the Paul Morphy article. Children who compete against other children are not normally considered "prodigies". Alsee (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Alsee, as has been discussed times before on this talk page, including in this 2016/2017 discussion, "words to watch" are commonly treated as "words to avoid." And WP:Words to avoid still redirects here. Editors commonly treat these words as forbidden words, which is one reason we are cautious of new word additions to this guideline. The other reason is so that the guideline does not have excessive listings. The words included are supposed to be examples. All it takes is a few examples to get the point across. I'm not sold on the idea of "prodigy" being added to this guideline solely because of the one instance that you and a few editors object to at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The addition is very likely to result in editors removing "prodigy" from articles without any thought to "prodigy" being valid in those articles. I agree with what Only in death stated at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about reliable sources. Of course, WP:Due should also be a concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)