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)

Terror allowed?

I've requested a comment at Talk:Sejny_Uprising#Same_old_business_again. Briefly, I believe that the use of controversial word "terror" in that context (describing Polish interwar gov't policy toward Lithuanians), referenced to only a single, non-English publication, is not acceptable - either in main body or in a quote. Lithuanian editors disagree (disclaimer: I a Pole). Comments by neutral editors would be highly appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We're having a discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC over an application of the word that has come to figure in the 2008 Presidential election. A recent addition[2] to the terrorism section has come up in that context, and I think we should consider modifying or removing that addition:

"Or, if multiple reliable sources use it, it may used to describe a subject, but only to suggest that the subject is widely known as a terrorist, and the references in question should be placed right after the word or the sentence the word appears in."

There are a few problems with this approach. First, counting usage of a word in sources to establish that the word applies to a subject is original research - this is a common question throughout the project. Second, it is unreliable. If the subject is very well known (in our case, the Weatherman (organization) there are many thousands of sources (e.g. [3]). It is not a straightforward task to review the sources to decide if "terrorist" is or is not used in reliable sources. Moreover, "reliable sources" tend to use the Queen's English but are nevertheless authorities only their subject matter, not as exemplars of the language, so they're not exactly the paradigm of controversial word usage. Finally, even if we could show that reliable sources with some threshold of frequency use the term, that does not establish that the use is a notable thing worth reporting. For example, many reliable sources refer to women college students (or used to, in the U.S.) as "co-eds". That does not establish that it is worth reporting in an article, say, on colleges, that women are widely known as co-eds. When the subject is the more politically charged term "terrorist" there has to be a reason why we would or would not want to say in an article that someone has been called a terrorist, and getting there indirectly by finding usages is an uncertain thing. Ideally one would have to find a preponderance of reliable sources that talk about the term being applied, not sources that merely apply the term. At some point I would like to modify the guideline to clarify this - but obviously independent of our current discussion (it being bad form to modify guidelines in order to make arguments).Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

lead section

I added "Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources" to the lead; I hope that's clearer for some readers. I was also a little more specific about what "jargon" is and I gave a better link, and I removed the link to WEASEL ... temporarily I hope. There's general agreement on the talk page at WEASEL that that page needs a lot of work. As always, feel free to revert or discuss. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A common error is

In the section WP:WTA#It should be noted, it is important to note/know, a common error is, it says:

• Many people think that dolphins are fish, however, this is not true. They are mammals.

While this may be true, it is irrelevant what "many people" think. Just state the fact: "Dolphins are mammals." See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

I may (or may not) agree in this particular instance, but I belive there are situations where common misconceptions are important to mention. As a strong example, see Monty Hall problem. In that article, the misconception is documented with citations - not only to sources that share in the misconception, but also to sources that discuss the misconception and make it a subject of academic study.

Of course, in many cases, the statement that something is a common error must be considered original research (and also unnotable), unless it is supported by citations.

In the cases where the common error is notable, perhaps the phrase "A common error is" is not the best way to convey that fact, so maybe it should be avoided - e.g., the dolphin thing could be rewritten as

Although dolphins [fish-like facts about dolphins], dolphins are mammals, not fish.

In some cases, not stating and debunking a misconception may cause frequent fly-by edits to add the misconception as if it were a fact. Avoiding this is, I think, in itself a valid reason to mention a misconception, though of course it should be done in an enyclopaedic fashion.

What I'm trying to say is, I think the project page should be slightly less absolute in rejecting the possibility of mentioning that something is a common error. I'm not sure how to change the phrasing, though.--Noe (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. It is tangential to the purpose of this guideline anyway. Geometry guy 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Length of this guideline. It is too long. In general.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think this guideline is way too long?

In general, guidelines which are as long as this one is have a high potential for not being read because they are way too long, and nobody wants to read a long guideline in general. This one, it seems to me, is way way too long. It keeps saying the same thing, again and again, in slightly different contexts, listing every single word (with some exceptions) that anyone could possible abuse in a Wikipedia article. Do we really want to be doing that? Surely it is best to avoid long guidelines in order to increase the chance that editors will read them, get the general idea, and remember them. This guideline is more that 50KB. It is way, way too long. A page is often described as being too long when it is more than 32KB. This one is longer than that. It is more like an essay, or even a term paper. The use of long guidelines should be given careful consideration by editors, as short guidelines are often preferable to long ones. The length of a guideline can have a significant effect on whether anyone wants to read it, for example. Long guidelines should not be used merely to excuse editors from thinking for themselves and applying common sense. In other words, they should be shortened. In general. Geometry guy 16:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, but on the other hand, I'm happy we haven't been saying to people, "Don't add that! Too long!" Better to do it the way we've done it, and let people have their say, let the words have an effect, and then pare it down after a while to just the stuff people are most likely to need, after consensus has taught us what that is. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep copyediting(++) begun. 5Kbytes removed so far. Geometry guy 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I notice that people keep getting confused (in various revert wars and talk page comments, here and at WEASEL) over the difference between language that is causing an NPOV problem and language that makes a statement unverifiable (too vague, or can't be proved true or false). We might be able to shorten and focus both pages a bit if we stick to NPOV problems on this page and verifiability problems on WEASEL (which I'd like to rename to "Verifiable language" btw). What do you guys think? I'll make a list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like this guideline (whatever it is called) to focus on NPOV problems caused by the use of words: in particular, I'd like to move the English variants issue and the dates issue to "see also". I'm not completely sure about the overlap with verifiability (once a POV statement is attributed it becomes neutral again), but I agree in principle with your suggestion. Geometry guy 20:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm stopping copyediting for today, with 10K bytes removed. I deliberately started with the bottom end of the guideline, which is more peripheral to the thrust of WTA. The principle I found most useful is to organise titles of sections around issues rather than individual words. A section title involving words to avoid is an open invitation to every editor to provide their own commentary on the use or misuse of each word, with examples of every possible abuse.

It remains (mainly) to copyedit sections 2 and 3. My plan is to use the same principle, by isolating themes rather than words, and illustrating the themes by words and examples, rather than letting the words take over. Geometry guy 22:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay done. In the end, I didn't isolate themes for section 2, but this could now easily be done, if editors like that approach. The guideline has been reduced from over 50KB to under 32KB, mostly just by copyediting and eliminating repetition. Also the table of contents should now fit on one screen for most editors.

I believe the guideline could be shortened further, and that a good guideline should not be more than 20-25KB, but that probably requires choices of focus, not just further copyediting++. Happy editing, Geometry guy 20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just plain too much!

After reading this article completely, it appears to me that it is simply impossible to write an article without violating at least a dozen of the no-no's that it contains. - mbeychok (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be called "Words to watch out for" instead? Anyway, WP:IGNORE.--Noe (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not an excuse for bad rules. It is also not an excuse for ignoring rules. Instead, it is an exhortation to put improving the encyclopedia first. Its one beautiful line is

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Take that line to heart. Geometry guy 19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it be known that that I think we agree. "Words to avoid" sounds quite categorical, and e.g. as I pointed out in the section #A common error is above, there must be exceptions to such a catagorical ban. That does not mean that the rules are bad, as a rule, but that occasionally WP:IAR kicks in. Only if that happens often, and especially if we can see a pattern in the ways it happens, we should modify the rules accordingly.

Nice work trimming the article, by the way!--Noe (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Thanks for the support. Geometry guy 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable use may not be

I removed

• "Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."

as an acceptable use, because I don't believe it is. Consider

• "Before the democratic convention, Clinton disagreed with Obama's policies. After she lost the nomination, however, she backed him 100%."

Of course, this is bad without the word "however", but the word "however" definitely makes it worse. Geometry guy 17:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're saying the issue is WP:SYNTH; which gives me two reasons not to want it on this page; it might be WP:SYNTH, and I'd prefer the page focus on WP:NPOV issues. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I removed it from the page as an "acceptable use". I am neutral about re-adding it as a "dubious use": the "however" here is a neutrality issue – you can almost imagine the eyebrows being raised knowingly. Geometry guy 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Words that label"

The section entitled "Words that label" makes it sound as if the problem with describing people or groups with words like racist, cult, or perversion is that these are not the words favored by that person or group themselves. This is beside the point, though. The problem with these expressions is not that they are "outside" (or, more formally, etic), but that they are pejorative: they carry a strong negative connotation, and as such are decidedly non-neutral.

We use etic expressions all the time ... when they are neutral. For instance, we describe religious and political movements without adopting wholesale their internal terminology; we describe mental disorders primarily in terms of their etic medical symptoms, not in terms of the subjective experience of their sufferers. But in so doing we also avoid pejorative descriptions. --FOo (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The section needs some work, and the examples may not be the best (they overlap with other sections anyway). It is not intended to give the impression that the bad thing is that the words are not favored by the group itself: that is merely given as a warning sign. But I'm not sure these words are wikt:pejorative in the dictionary sense of depreciatory (see also pejorative). I think the point of the section is to note that even words which can have a clear meaning (e.g. racist, someone who believes in or asserts the superiority of a particular race, someone who practices racial discrimination, etc.) are often used in a non-descriptive way as labels. Wikipedia articles are perfectly entitled to say negative things about people and groups, if that is what reliable sources do, but they should not imply negative things through misuse of words. Geometry guy 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)