Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

"Controversial"

I propose that the word "controversial" be added to this list. It's essentially a meaningless phrase, typically used by the writer in an article lede to indicate something they don't like or disagree with. Almost anything can be described as "controversial", but this adds no information for the reader. For example, every single recent President of the United States could accurately be described as "controversial", but including the phrase in the lede of an article (e.g. the controversial thirty-ninth/fortieth/forty-first/... President of the United States) would not assist the reader in any way. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree - you will always find someone who disagrees with something. Simply using "controversial" by itself doesn't tell you the most important things, what is the specific topic of controversy and who finds the matter controversial in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea but there are some issues.

Writing controversial historian, controversial massacre, controversial president is useless.

But there are some topics that requires the use of the word. Eg, I think sentences such as : "There is a controversy among historians and scholars concerning the causes of the events. Some claim that... while other consider...".

Ceedjee (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper rule here is "use controversial if you like, but justify it." Otherwise it's just a weasel word, attempting to discredit something without pointing to any real critics. Dcoetzee 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial and controversy are discussed above, starting at the second section on this page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" and "controversy" are quite different things. "Controversial" is a weasel word that means nothing. On the other hand, a "controversy" is a specific issue, which will have been discussed by reliable sources. The discussion above is really about the term "controversy", and I'm only talking about the word "controversial". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck, every president was probably controversial in their day. "Controversy" is a handy neutral phrase to describe something people don't agree on, and I see no reason not to use it. I actually proposed a while back to move all of the "criticism of foo" articles to "foo controversy" for NPOV reasons, but that didn't go nowhere. "Controversial" has some similar uses, since it keys a reader to being aware that there is a debate without taking sides in the debate. Using the word without explaining why the person was controversial is bad writing, but there is a time and a place to use the word and a time and a place to whack people with a dictionary trout when they use it inappropriately. SDY (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with me, since I see no problem with the term "controversy" either? On the other hand, "controversial", as pointed out, doesn't actually add any information, except the information that a Wikipedia editor didn't like something. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's more to it than that - the context is surely the key to it. If you use "controversial" as an adjective, e.g. "controversial incident", "controversial idea", all you are doing is saying that someone somewhere disagrees with it. That is not particularly informative. However, if you say something like "the theory is controversial among scientists" or "has provoked controversy among historians" then you have an informative statement; you're flagging the existence of a controversy among a specific group of people. You've then positioned yourself nicely for a followup sentence describing the rival schools of thought. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's when used as an adjective that it's just adding POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial should clearly not be used for "I don't agree with it" but it is appropriate as "this section should be treated with care since there are differing interpretations and the disagreements are sometimes impolite." For example, saying that firearm policies are controversial in the United States is a reasonable statement for an article about the Libertarian Party. The article can then go on and give the party's view on the subject, but the reader is informed that their position is not the only common view without hashing out all opposing views in that article. It should not be the last statement in the article, but it's a great excuse to drop in a wikilink to another article without going into excruciating detail. It's also good language to use for a lead, since it invites the reader to look further into the subject. The reality is that many rules could be created for its use, but that would run into WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the word "controversial" add when we use them to describe firearm policies? In what way would that differ from just about any other governmental policy? Healthcare policies? Taxation policies? They're all "controversial". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifically answering the question, a topic is generally only controversial only if otherwise reliable groups have made strong statements about the topic that disagree with other reliable groups. I would strongly disagree with calling a person controversial, but I see no reason not to call a controversy (especially one that meets notability requirements for its own article) controversial.

To put it another way, most of the words on this page are here because they are often misunderstood, imply a POV, or fit into another broad category of problem. What broad category does controversial belong in? SDY (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is a controversy, then describe it as a specific controversy. As for what category "controversial" fits, it fits both "Words that may advance a point of view" and "Words that editorialize". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could put it with Scandal and Affair, but the irony is that section uses the word controversial... SDY (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Theory"

• Current: "use only as if it were used in the context of science".
• Proposed: "treat as jargon and explain if used, otherwise avoid".

This term is often used as a term of art within science but it is often used in everyday conversation to mean something rather different. It ends up being ambiguous, especially with questions of pseudoscience which may claim to be a "theory" and fall short. "Theory" as defined is jargon for a specific field (science), and it should be explained in articles where it must be used (i.e. Philosophy of science). It should be avoided outright in pseudoscience articles, which should discuss "it's not good science" not "it fails to meet the criteria to be called a theory." Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Theory is distinct, well-defined scientific concept, not jargon. Also, the proposed change would mean that literally hundreds of science articles would have to explain the term at each juncture opening the door for fringe promoters to insert their own competing notion. Odd nature (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Distinct and well-defined could be said for any jargon, since that's rather the point of having jargon in the first place. I don't think using or not using the word would help or hinder your average WP:TE, frankly, because "it is/is not a theory" doesn't mean much to them anyway. Saying that science "owns" the word is rather silly, since the Theory article opens with "The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion." Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No vote is necessary here. The editor is attempting to change a longstanding guideline, and it would take consensus to do so. There isn't any consensus as far as I can see.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, give it more than ten minutes before closing the discussion. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If an article is about a scientific topic, that provides sufficient context to clearly indicate the intended meaning. Almost nobody really misunderstands the word "theory," they just abuse its double meaning to call theories they don't like into doubt. Dcoetzee 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just some things to ponder on how broadly understood it is: one article and another article that discuss the topic (search for "Ronald Reagan" in the second one, long article). Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tortured writing

What supports the arguments that a seperate criticism section is often poor writing? What sources on writing non-fiction say that this is poor form and style and what are their reasonings? What are some alternatives we can describe or point to? Hyacinth (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a reliable source on this, and frankly I think in many cases it's a good way to do it, but the main reason I think they're worth avoiding is that the argument becomes "it's the criticism section, it doesn't have to be balanced because it's about criticism!"

Criticism sections also often become more discussion than description, with "he said, she said" neutrality. They're not very encyclopedic. The criticism should have enough weight to be mentioned in the main article and not be shoved into the axe-grinding section.

They can be done right, but they're usually "the world must know about the evils of vegemite and it doesn't fit into any other section." SDY (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that you immediately stopped talking about the quality of the writing and began to address concerns about neutrality. NPOV is a very important concern, but the specific argument I am asking about right now regards poor writing overall, not the neutrality of that writing, whatever its quality otherwise. It would be great if we could strengthen and clarify this point. Hyacinth (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With the vegemite example, criticisms often turn out to quite easily belong into article sections, such as "Nutritional information" or "United States ban rumour". Perhaps an example such as this would provide clarity(?). Hyacinth (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So put them into a new section or incorporate them into a relevant existing section. Not hard. If it doesn't merit its own section and doesn't have sufficient weight to be incorporated into existing sections, why is it in the article?

To get to your first point, a large portion of the words to avoid are bad writing specifically because they have NPOV problems. Criticism sections have exactly the same issue. In the context of wikipedia, NPOV is a crucial element, if not the crucial element, of good writing. To paraphrase an old aphorism: average writing can be understood, good writing cannot be misunderstood. Criticism sections are average writing.

Let me turn the question around: why would a criticism section be good writing? SDY (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Without any reasoning provided, the argument that in addition to often being non-neutral, criticism sections are simply a poor way of structuring articles which leads to poor writing within those sections, does not seem like a very strong argument. If this policy has no alternatives to provide to an action which it suggests avoiding, it is impractical at best. If you support the avoidance of criticism sections then I would imagine that you would agree with me on these points and wish to address them by improving this policy so as to assist editors to do so. Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, I provided a fair amount of reasoning. The project page provides more. "No criticism section" implying "work it into the rest of the article, pitch it if it isn't notable" seems kind of obvious, but I guess one line isn't much WP:CREEP. SDY (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like what you are saying is "good writing" = "neutral" in which case the project page could probably be shortened, as that is much clearer. However, note that this may not be entirely accurate as Wikipedia:Featured article criteria includes many criteria which are listed separately from "neutral". Hyacinth (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more "not neutral" implies "not good writing." Symbolically, !A->!B, which is different from A->B and very distinct from !A=!B or your synthesis, which was B=A. Criticism sections can be written neutrally, but claim and scandal and theory can be used appropriately as well.

On a completely unrelated note, how is article structure a word? Should this article be called something else? SDY (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the reasoning given in the project page, the project page refers to the impression of "back-and-forth" between two opinions. However, a criticism section would actually create a half-and-half article structure. I assume that this is what is meant by the reference to a structure creating a "hierarchy of fact", both of which are to be avoided. What unnamed structure is preferred?

And, if one cannot present contrasting opinions in alternation nor one after the other, how one must do it? Simultaneously? Hyacinth (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no hard and fast rules for good writing. There are only suggestions, and most of those depend on audience and context. "He said she said" is rarely good writing. There are better ways to do it.

Take Capital Punishment, which has a separate section for religious views, some of which are critical, some of which are not. It has a section on abolitionism, a notable movement that by definition has some criticism for the topic. There is a lot of criticism in the article, but there isn't a section for "people who oppose the death penalty and rebuttals by people who support the death penalty."

The only style that the guideline frowns upon is a section that contains nothing but criticism and rebuttals. SDY (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Or a section containing only criticism. Hyacinth (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That may have pure NPOV issues, but the back and forth and back and forth is also bad writing even if it is nominally balanced. It makes the article read like a debate rather than a description, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate isn't the same as "poor writing". A novel may be brilliantly written, but it wouldn't fit the style guidelines for Wikipedia, and that doesn't mean it is poorly written. Hyacinth (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Need

Just as a random spot, my boss has stricken this word from the available lexicon in writing on the justification that it has an ambiguous meaning. You don't "need" air to live, you must have air to live. You don't "need" six cats an' a puppy an' a gol'fish named fluffy, you want them.

It drives me absolutely batty sometimes, but the logic is actually solid. SDY (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think need is unambiguous as long as it's clear - either explicitly or from context - what the result would be if the need were unfulfilled. I need air to live; I need an instrument to play music; I need to write a grant proposal to receive a grant. That sort of thing. Dcoetzee 07:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Chris, I like most of the changes you made to what I wrote. NB, I meant to have the word "not" in the sentence you intitally reverted, thus reversing my intended meaning: I could see why you might have been confused. I can't think of many instances when anonymous quotes would go into guideline pages; in any event, as expressed, the quote is quite contrary to WP policy. We go by what reliable sources say, not "one man" versus "another man." It also leads people to think that the word terrorist cannot appear in articles, which would of course be absurd. And the aside about what terrorism is/is not, beyond being debatable, is beyond the scope of this page. IronDuke 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "heresy"

There is currently a tag on this page about the usage of the word "heresy". For what it's worth, I don't see many situations in which the word would not be one to avoid, given its very prejudicial nature. However, I can see very limited situations in which it could be used. These might include, for instance, referring to the "Albigensian heresy" in the articles on Saint Dominic or the Dominican Order by that term, as the term has been regularly used in works abaout Dominic and the Dominicans. But even then its usage should be limited, and only when describing not the subject, but the way that the subject was perceived by some outside party, in this case the Dominicans. Otherwise, I really can't see why "heterodox" or similar language, which doesn't have the emotional charge "heresy" does, wouldn't be preferable. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. In some cases, when you're talking about a religious group with a strong central authority, you could make the case that the central authority figure or figures (e.g. the Pope) have sole discretion as to what constitutes heresy. Heresy in Islam might be tougher to pin down, as that religion doesn't have a centrally recognized authority on what constitutes deviation from dogma. IronDuke 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discrimination"

Should discrimination, in descriptions of topics or events, or in categories or portals, a word to avoid, as John Carter suggests at [1]? If so... what other word is there? Is Wikipedia really beholden to popular value judgments and conceptions that don't have an objective basis? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

This word should be added, or at the least, not suggested by WP:WTA#Scandal, affair. The suggestion in itself is a can of worms, because it implies a dispute where often there is only one viewpoint. This is normally violated by way of article and section titles. For example, Isaiah Washington's dismissal from Grey's Anatomy is not a "controversy". On the other hand, if there is a genuine dispute, for example, the AACS encryption key controversy, we should. But at the very least, we should discourage people from thinking "controversy" instantly removes a POV. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fans

Should 'fans' be a word to avoid, when writing about fiction, music, sport, etc. & its reception? I see it most often in weasel word phrases such as "many fans believe this character is based on X" or "this episode was unpopular with some fans". These qualifiers may well be used to introduce the editors' own opinions in the Wikipedia article; if they are supported with a citation (e.g. from a fan-site), that does not necessarily prove the "many fans" statement.

Also there are problems with the word 'fan' itself. It is usually considered fairly informal rather than the kind of language one would expect in an encyclopedia. It is also extremely vague and open to interpretation. E.g. How is a Simpsons fan defined? Is it anyone who watches and enjoys the show fairly frequently, or is it only the kind of devotte who gives over a lot of their spare time thinking & talking & writing about it? It also tends to refer to a demographic who are likely to be either less critical of the subject matter, or critical in rather different ways, compared to either the wider population or the media. So its overuse may distort neutrality in articles. I am sure there must be ways to rephrase statements about fans' opinions more neutrally and more specifically. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In some cases it makes sense; it's increasingly common for fans to have a notable affect on the topic that they're a fan of, and one can reasonably talk about the opinions of a particular fan community without overgeneralizing it to "many" or "most" fans. Dcoetzee 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

However, science-fiction fandom is as well-defined as most other groups of people. Statements about it will be hard to source, but that is not a question of words to avoid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult picks up new articles loaded with undesirable words. Colchicum (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Claim"

Seeing as this is the MoS and all, is it worth pointing out in the section about the word "claim" that some authorities (Fowler I think; book's not to hand) insist thatclaim only be used in the sense of purporting the right to property? That would hopefully further dissuade its misuse. Or is this a bit instruction-creepy? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with British-English advice in this or any style guideline. There's no similar prohibition on "claim" in American style guides. NYTM says "it means to assert a right or contend something, that may be open to [questioning]". The other guides are silent. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove part of the instruction on this subject. Under the heading "Acceptable use", the page now approves this example: "Scholar Smith claims that absolute truth cannot exist. Philosopher Peters claims that it must exist in order for the universe to function." (Another similar one follows.) There's no good reason to use "claims" here, when "states", "believes", "asserts", "contends", "opines", etc. are available.

The word does properly refer to an assertion of a right to property ("both Britain and Argentina claimed the islands"). It's also proper in the context of a legal proceeding. In U.S. law, "claim for relief" is an important term in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in many state rules modeled after the federal rules. Those usages are OK. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)