Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: Difference between revisions
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) tightening |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==Words that may label == |
==Words that may label == |
||
{{Quote box4 |
{{Quote box4 |
||
|quote = <big>'''Cult, perverted, racist, anti-Semitic, extremist, terrorist, militant, insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, bomber, gunman, hijacker, kidnapper''' </big> |
|quote = <big>'''Cult, perverted, racist, anti-Semitic, extremist, terrorist, militant, insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, bomber, gunman, hijacker, kidnapper''' </big> |
||
|width = 80% |
|width = 80% |
||
|align = center |
|align = center |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
{{shortcut|WP:LABEL|WP:TERRORIST|WP:EXTREMIST}} |
{{shortcut|WP:LABEL|WP:TERRORIST|WP:EXTREMIST}} |
||
Words that label a group or practice—such as calling an organization a cult, a sexual practice a perversion, or an individual a racist or anti-Semite—need in-text attribution. The terms "extremist" and "terrorist" are particularly contentious and should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Generic words such as militant, insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan can also be used. But even with in-text attribution ask yourself what information is conveyed by adding such descriptions to the article. More descriptive terms are usually preferable, such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, or kidnapper. |
Words that label a group or practice—such as calling an organization a cult, a sexual practice a perversion, or an individual a racist or anti-Semite—need in-text attribution. The terms "extremist" and "terrorist" are particularly contentious and should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Generic words such as militant, insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan can also be used. But even with in-text attribution ask yourself what information is conveyed by adding such descriptions to the article. More descriptive terms are usually preferable, such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, or kidnapper. |
||
Also be cautious with religious terms such as cult, sect, fundamentalist, heretic. The labels are best avoided unless they are used widely by reliable sources to describe the group or idea in question. |
|||
==Words that may editorialize== |
==Words that may editorialize== |
||
| Line 50: | Line 52: | ||
"Died" is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms and clichés such as "died tragically," "untimely death," "passed away," "passed over," and "gave his life". Avoid "resting place": dead people aren't resting. |
"Died" is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms and clichés such as "died tragically," "untimely death," "passed away," "passed over," and "gave his life". Avoid "resting place": dead people aren't resting. |
||
==Ambiguous words and neologisms== |
|||
==Words with multiple meanings== |
|||
{{Quote box4 |
|||
===Theories and hypotheses=== |
|||
|quote = <big>'''Theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, idea, controversy, scandal, affair, -gate''' </big> |
|||
Do not use ''[[theory]]'' to mean ''guess'' or ''speculation''; however, the verb ''to theorize'' may be appropriate for learned speculation. |
|||
|width = 80% |
|||
|align = center |
|||
}} |
|||
A '''theory''' is a system of thought that has a degree of acceptance, often within academia, though it may not be correct. For less established ideas, use hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation, or consider using "idea," which is more generic. As always, check the reliable sources. |
|||
Words such as "controversy," "scandal," and "affair" can convey a point of view and should be used with caution. The phrase "[[Wikt:-gate|-gate]]" is often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode. Use it in articles only when the issue is being widely described as such, and use in-text attribution. |
|||
In the [[natural science]]s and other academic fields, a theory is a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests. Well-known examples are [[Albert Einstein]]'s theory of [[general relativity]], [[B.F. Skinner]]'s theory of [[reinforcement]] <ref>Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts ISBN 0-13-171728-6.</ref> |
|||
,and the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]]. Theories are open to constant scrutiny that often reveals their limitations, as with [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[Newton's law of universal gravitation|theory of gravity]], but they remain highly accurate descriptions of observable data within these limitations. |
|||
[[Neologism]]s are expressions that have recently been coined. They should generally be avoided because their definitions are unstable; if you do use them, make sure you have a reliable source. Be careful not to add "-ism" to a term—which can make a set of beliefs or practices sound more established than they are—unless the sources do. |
|||
In [[mathematics]], ''theory'' is used to refer to a body of knowledge consisting of many theorems about related objects, as with [[Galois theory]] or [[Representation theory]]. A ''[[theorem]]'' is a proven result, and a ''conjecture'' is a proposed but unproven hypothesis. |
|||
In [[philosophy]], the term ''theory'' is sometimes used to describe a historically well-established line of thinking, or a class of reasoned philosophical ideas, as with [[correspondence theory of truth]] or the [[consensus theory of truth]]. |
|||
In all cases, a theory is a system of thought used to explain phenomena. For speculations and guesses, use a word such as "[[hypothesis]]" or "[[conjecture]]" instead. |
|||
===Religion=== |
|||
Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources. |
|||
''[[Wikt:cult|Cult]]'' has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in [[sociology]] to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended. The adjective [[wikt:cultic|cultic]] may be preferable in such cases. A second exception concerns a reference to a particular religious practice, such as "the cult of [[Demeter]] at [[Eleusina|Eleusis]]" or "[http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/canonlaw.htm the cult of the saints]". See [[cult (religious practice)]]. |
|||
''[[Wikt:sect|Sect]]'' likewise has several different meanings, but has fewer negative connotations. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. However, the word may or may not imply novelty or tension. It can also imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group. Consequently its use can promote a point of view unless its meaning is clearly defined. For novel religions, the term ''[[new religious movement]]'' may be more appropriate: see [[list of new religious movements]]. |
|||
''[[Wikt:fundamentalism|Fundamentalism]]'' refers to "the tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts." A [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] is not necessarily an extremist. However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. Consequently, it should primarily be used for groups that are ''self-described'' fundamentalists. For groups labeled as fundamentalists by others, the term should be attributed to the source. |
|||
''[[Wikt:heresy|Heresy]]'' refers to beliefs held by members of a religious group which are in conflict with the orthodox doctrine of the group. It should not be used to refer to external opposition to a religion, and its use should be supported by reliable sources. |
|||
===Controversy and scandal=== |
|||
A ''[[Wikt:controversy|controversy]]'' is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words ''scandal'' and ''affair'', and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and ''only'' when it is interchangeable with the words ''debate'' or ''dispute'', for example: |
|||
*The [[AACS encryption key controversy]] was a real-life ''dispute'' regarding whether the AACS encryption key would and should be illegal; |
|||
*The [[Question Time British National Party controversy]] was a real-life ''debate'' about whether an elected politician with far-right views should receive an invitation to appear on a publicly funded political panel show;. |
|||
Whereas: |
|||
*The termination of [[Isaiah Washington]]'s ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' contract for alleged homophobic remarks to his co-star was ''not'' controversial because there was no debate or dispute that Washington should be sacked for making the comments. The comments he made were not controversial either; while his remarks were ''offensive'', this does not mean they were ''controversial''. |
|||
When using words such as ''controversy'' or ''conflict'', make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict. Consider using the term ''incident'' or other neutral wording when there is no dispute. |
|||
The words ''[[Wikt:scandal|scandal]]'', ''[[Wikt:affair|affair]]'', and ''[[Wikt:-gate|-gate]]'' are often used in [[journalism]] to describe a controversial episode or in [[politics]] to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles ''except'' in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., [[Teapot Dome scandal]], [[Dreyfus affair]] or [[Watergate scandal]]). |
|||
===Solutions=== |
|||
The word ''[[wikt:solution|solution]]'' should be confined to its use in chemistry, mathematics and problem solving. It should ''not'' be used to refer to products, services, software or a combination of these things, since such usage implies that the product or service solves the problem it is intended to solve: the word "solution" should instead be replaced by a concrete descriptive term for the type of product, such as "software". ''Solution'' often is used simply as a [[buzzword]] that can be eliminated altogether with no loss of meaning. |
|||
Dubious use: |
|||
*"The company offers web hosting ''solutions'' for e-business..." Instead say "The company offers web hosting for e-business..." (if that is what it does). |
|||
Acceptable use: |
|||
*"A ''solution'' of sodium chloride in water..." |
|||
*"The ''solution'' to the chess problem involves the sacrifice of the knight..." |
|||
===Myth and legend=== |
|||
{{see also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion}} |
|||
===See and saw=== |
|||
A construction using the words "see" or "saw" to describe an event that took place should be avoided where it results in a sentence saying that an inanimate object, period of time, or any other noun without visual organs "saw" something. |
|||
Examples to avoid: |
|||
*1999 saw the repeal of part of the [[Glass–Steagall Act]] by the [[Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act]]. |
|||
*[[Vanessa Hudgens]]'s second album [[Identified]] saw limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the [[UK Albums Chart]]. |
|||
The above sentences could be replaced by: |
|||
*In 1999, the [[Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act]] repealed part of the [[Glass–Steagall Act]]. |
|||
*[[Vanessa Hudgens]]'s second album [[Identified]] experienced limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the [[UK Albums Chart]]. |
|||
The second sentence could also be replaced by "[[Vanessa Hudgens]] saw her second album [[Identified]] experiencing limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the [[UK Albums Chart]]", as Vanessa Hudgens has eyes and is capable of seeing things. |
|||
==Neologisms and new compounds== |
|||
[[Neologism]]s are words and terms that have recently been coined. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. Neologisms should be avoided in most Wikipedia articles because their definitions tend to be unstable and it is likely that they will not be understood by most readers. By their very nature, many of them fail our [[WP:V|verifiability]] policy. Attempts to secure one stable meaning generally run afoul of our policy prohibiting [[WP:OR|original research]]. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to accurately describe recent developments in, for instance, a scientific field, its use and meaning must be supported by [[WP:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. |
|||
Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-, post-, non–, anti-,'' or ''–like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid clarity and concision. While this practice is acceptable in some cases, care must be taken that the resulting terms are not misleading, ambiguous, or offensive, and that they do not lend [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a [[WP:NPOV|particular point of view]]. (For instance, adding ''–ism'' to a word may falsely suggest that a tenuous belief system or political movement is well established.) Where editors disagree over the use of such a compound that does not appear in major dictionaries, it is best to find a substitute expression. |
|||
==Article and section titles== |
==Article and section titles== |
||
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Article titles}} |
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Article titles}} |
||
Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion. |
Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion. |
||
Revision as of 07:17, 4 April 2010
There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article, but a number of expressions should be used with particular care to avoid poor style. It is almost always possible to improve on or eliminate expressions that are ambiguous, offensive, flattering, condescending, clichéd, or jargonistic. (This does not apply to quotations.) In treating contentious matters, avoid expressions that suggest Wikipedia subscribes to a specific point of view.
Synonyms for "to say"
A point of view may be implied by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say." For example, "X noted," "X reported," and "X observed" imply that X was correct to note, report, or observe. "Revealed," "pointed out," "exposed," and "surmised" carry similar dangers. On the other hand, synonyms such as "stated" and "argued" express no point of view; "according to" can be used in the same way.
"X claimed" should generally be avoided, because it raises a question, particularly after a factual statement; for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a statement yesterday claimed he was not a racist."
Words such as "insist," "maintain," "protest," "contend," or "feel" are fine when used appropriately, but be careful not to imply that the subject is irrational for "feeling" or "insisting" something. Similarly, "admit," "confess," or "deny" should be used judiciously, particularly of living persons, because they can convey guilt. For example, "Supervisors said they knew nothing about the incident" is better than "Supervisors denied all knowledge of the incident," which hints that perhaps they really did know something.
Words that may introduce bias
Words such as "supposed," "purported," and "alleged" can imply when used incorrectly that Wikipedia is saying a given point is inaccurate. "So-called" should be used carefully: it can mean "commonly named" or "falsely named," and it can be difficult to tell the two apart. It should therefore be restricted to the first meaning when introducing words that may be unfamiliar. Words such as "however" and "although" can imply that one alternative is less favored than another, so use them with caution too.
Words that may label
Words that label a group or practice—such as calling an organization a cult, a sexual practice a perversion, or an individual a racist or anti-Semite—need in-text attribution. The terms "extremist" and "terrorist" are particularly contentious and should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Generic words such as militant, insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan can also be used. But even with in-text attribution ask yourself what information is conveyed by adding such descriptions to the article. More descriptive terms are usually preferable, such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, or kidnapper.
Also be cautious with religious terms such as cult, sect, fundamentalist, heretic. The labels are best avoided unless they are used widely by reliable sources to describe the group or idea in question.
Words that may editorialize
Adverbs such as "notably" and "interestingly," and phrases such as "it should be noted," highlight a particular fact or opinion as particularly significant, and should usually be avoided for that reason. Words such as "fundamentally," "essentially," and "basically" can indicate a preferred viewpoint, as can "clearly," "actually," "obviously," "naturally," and "of course." Similarly, Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether something is amusing, interesting, or "fortunate," or whether something "unfortunately" or "happily" occurred. Use caution in calling a musician "legendary," unless it would be obtuse not to, or his album a "classic."
Euphemism and cliché
"Died" is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms and clichés such as "died tragically," "untimely death," "passed away," "passed over," and "gave his life". Avoid "resting place": dead people aren't resting.
Ambiguous words and neologisms
Template:Quote box4 A theory is a system of thought that has a degree of acceptance, often within academia, though it may not be correct. For less established ideas, use hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation, or consider using "idea," which is more generic. As always, check the reliable sources.
Words such as "controversy," "scandal," and "affair" can convey a point of view and should be used with caution. The phrase "-gate" is often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode. Use it in articles only when the issue is being widely described as such, and use in-text attribution.
Neologisms are expressions that have recently been coined. They should generally be avoided because their definitions are unstable; if you do use them, make sure you have a reliable source. Be careful not to add "-ism" to a term—which can make a set of beliefs or practices sound more established than they are—unless the sources do.
Article and section titles
Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion.
For example, the title "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is inappropriate because it suggests a viewpoint on whether there was such a conspiracy.
The appropriateness of a word may depend on the topic. For instance, the existing article on "Sodomy" is an article about the word itself, both in common and legal use. This is appropriate, whereas it would not be appropriate to use the word in the title of an article about homosexuality.
A non-neutral title can make an article hard to balance. For instance article titles of the form "Criticism of..." should be avoided where possible. For critical reaction to a work, consider instead "Critique of..." or "Reaction to...".
References
See also
