Talk:Lasso (programming language)

popular (sic)

The given source "mentions" Lasso, but demonstrates the reverse: it is not a "popular" language. Another source is needed, to replace this one. TEDickey (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The link does not directly articulate popularity. However, as a comparable scripting language Server-side scripting, Lasso would be the 7th most popular native web language in the world (after PHP, Python, Perl, ASP, Coldfusion, Lua and Ruby - according to this particular site, quoted by the author on the LassoLab talk page as an indicator of popularity). The 7th most popular car company is Bugatti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobiles#Brand_bestsellers). The 7th most popular spoken language is Bangali (http://listverse.com/2008/06/26/top-10-most-spoken-languages-in-the-world/). Perhaps we should delete those from Wikipedia? ;) --Seanstephens (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The charts in the given site illustrate what the developers of that site conceived as popularity. If you would like to invent a new meaning for the term, be aware of WP:OR as a guideline TEDickey (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the authors of that site explicitly state popularity, except that the language should register in "most of our existing data sources". By that specified indicator, the authors of the site are including all languages listed as "popular" - which follows from the site title "Programming Language Popularity". By inclusion on this site, a language can therefore be defined as "popular" - Popularity.--Sean Stephens (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest replacing "popular" with "widely used". Popular is a very vague and subjective term, and we programmers like precision and clarity. Stevepiercy (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)stevepiercy

I'll buy that. It's also how other languages are described - without citation - so it stands to reason that this description can be used in this context as well. I say, make it so! --Sean Stephens (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively - as no other languages on Wikipedia describe popularity or usage other than Python (which, I will note, uses "widely used" citing links where "widely used" does not appear) - I suggest we remove the subjective "popular" and/or "widely used" from the initial sentence altogether. --Sean Stephens (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Widely-used should be quantifiable (comparing with the obvious https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#psj=1&q=filetype:html and https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#psj=1&q=filetype:php - among others, even if google's result counts were useful - shows lasso as an insignificant fraction of what google reports). langpop uses google for 3 of the 8 charts, by the way. TEDickey (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be applying your own definition of "widely used". If you would like to invent a new meaning for the term, be aware of WP:OR as a guideline. By your own admission, https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#q=filetype:lasso (17MM) is one fifth of https://www.google.com/search?as_filetype=lasso#q=filetype:py (78MM) (the file extension for Python, where the words are used uncontested - you are confusing Python and PHP, methinks). So, using the uncontested article for Python as the basis - you would agree that Lasso would be, under this definition, "widely used". --Sean Stephens (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of cleaning up the article for readibility and consistency, I propose (and am WP:BOLD) just removing the references to popularity. --Sean Stephens (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Citing change to LAMP Architecture from MacOS

I'm not sure how to find a citation for this fact, as per WP:COMMON. If you check the definition of this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_(software_bundle)

You'll see that it classically involves Linux, Apache, MySQL and a middleware language. By Lasso being released on Linux, Apache and MySQL (and Apple's OSX also inheriting this environment), it's more of a fact than something that can be cited. Trying to cite a source for this would contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability (Wikipedia:Citation overkill). Ergo, I propose removing the citation request or rewording this sentence to something that doesn't require citation. It's not fallacious. It's just an obvious fact to a developer, and part of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanstephens (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Lacking a source giving the analysis, it's needless editorializing. About 2/3 of the section suffers from this problem. TEDickey (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lasso 8 as most popular (sic)

I'm not sure there is a basis in literature (or fact) that Lasso 8.x is the most popular language, by the definitions stated above in section "popular (sic)". There are, to my knowledge, not enough historical records to assert such a claim. Ergo, am changing the text to reflect various products introduced by Omnipilot - and a note about the longevity of the product (Lasso 8 was, by simple math, the longest interval between version releases). --Sean Stephens (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

coding samples versus open-source

Referring to the product as partially open-source is misleading, given the provided source. Many proprietary/closed-source products provide coding samples to support their documentation. TEDickey (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The (now broken) link references the central repository for Lasso's source files, not "code samples". The link is here: [1]. If you click the links, you'll see you can only get to 70% of it or so (which changes as people edit the repos). --Sean Stephens (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the same link. What people expect for "open source" is information regarding their ability to reuse the information presented separately from the product. There is none that I see; it looks like coding samples, making the introduction of "open source" both superfluous and misleading. TEDickey (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As per request, added an example of open-source contributions based on linked source, so as not to be superfluous or misleading.--Sean Stephens (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the description as partially open source is apt. The link [2] to Lasso 9's source provides the code for many structures that would generally be considered to be "built-in" to a language or to its standard library. The source includes code for the boolean type, integer type, decimal type, string type, array type, database manipulation, and more. These are non-trivial foundation level types in the object hierarchy. It is possible to radically alter the language by branching the source and redefining basic actions like string comparisons or array inserts. Users can and have crafted completely different methodologies such as an object oriented method of database manipulation which is actually faster than the built-in procedural methods [3] Fletc3her (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

that's not responsive: you're referring to a term which has acquired a fairly specific meaning, but your source lacks one of the characteristics. TEDickey (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the files have no license or copyright. Some do, such as this, which grants no rights to use (other than fair use, which would not suffice for developers) TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the link provided, the best recommendation is to simply remove the comment about open source. TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

As per the definition by WP of Open Source, I would agree - Lasso is not Open Source (capital "O", capital "S"), but rather allows access to its source, more akin to Shared Source. Perhaps change to "allows partial access to its source code", which is correct and certainly not superfluous or misleading. This point - the mix of source-code availability and licensing structure - is a regularly questioned point and differentiates Lasso from other comparable popular scripting languages. --Sean Stephens (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not Shared source either - that has again a well-defined meaning (licensing). I don't see any links to the "regularly questioned point" (and Wikipedia isn't the repository for answers - those belong someplace where they can be discussed as reliable sources TEDickey (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I think you missed my suggestion. I'll WP:BOLD and make the change - let me know what you think. --Sean Stephens (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Needless Editorializing

I am on a mission to ensure this article is free from needless editorializing and follows

For raising issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. For advice on applying this policy, see the NPOV tutorial. For frequent critiques and responses, see the NPOV FAQ.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Explanation

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Further information: Wikipedia:Advocacy

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. The neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

What to include and exclude

See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

Article structure

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

Due and undue weight

"Wikipedia:UNDUE" redirects here; not to be confused with Wikipedia:UNDO.

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

Balance

"WP:BALANCE" redirects here. For balance regarding the "In the news" section, see WP:ITNBALANCE. For the "balanced editing restriction", see WP:BER.

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Balancing aspects

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

See also: False balance

When considering "due impartiality" ... [we are] careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to "false balance", meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [it] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

—BBC Trust's policy on science reporting 2011
See updated report from 2014.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

Making necessary assumptions

When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, art, nutrition, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate.

Selecting sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Some types of sources, and Wikipedia:Academic bias

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

Bias in sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

Controversial subjects

Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.

Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical negationism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

Religion

"WP:RNPOV" redirects here. For neutrality of redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirect § Neutrality of redirects.

Further information: Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Point-of-view forks

See also: Wikipedia:Content forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.

How to write neutrally

Naming

See also: Wikipedia:Article titles § Neutrality in article titles

In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned. It may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names).

Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", and "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Impartial tone

See also: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Information style and tone

Wikipedia describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.

Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations

The Starry Night—good painting or bad painting? That's not for us to decide, but we note what others say.

Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.

Attributing and specifying biased statements

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Point of view

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)

Words to watch

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).

Common objections and clarifications

For answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales talks about NPOV at WikiConference India

Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy are summarized in the subheadings below. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try the policy talk page. Before asking, please review the links below.

Being neutral

"There's no such thing as objectivity"

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

A simple formulation—what does it mean?

A former section of this policy called "A simple formulation" said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." What does this mean?

Balancing different views

Writing for the opponent

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie to represent the view I disagree with?

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

Editor disputes

Dealing with biased contributors

I agree with the nonbias policy, but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

Other objections

Anglo-American focus

The English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Not answered here

I have some other objection—where should I complain?

History

Main page: Wikipedia:Core content policies

"Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Wikipedia. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled "Non-bias policy", it was drafted by Larry Sanger in 2000. In 2001, Sanger suggested that avoiding bias as one of Wikipedia's "rules to consider". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy statement on Wikipedia was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001. Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008.

No original research (NOR) and verifiability (V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with undue weight and fringe theories. The NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The verifiability policy was established in 2003 to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.

See also

Policies and guidelines

• Conflict of interest
• Fringe theories
• Words to watch
• No original research
• Verifiability

Noticeboards

• NPOV noticeboard

Information pages

• Describing points of view
• List of controversial issues
• NPOV dispute
• NPOV FAQ
• NPOV quiz
• Recentism
• Positive tone (historical Meta policy)
• Understand bias (historical Meta policy)

Essays

• Be neutral in form
• Blind men and an elephant
• Cherrypicking
• Civil POV pushing
• Coatrack articles
• Conflicting sources
• Controversial articles
• Criticism sections
• Describing points of view
• Don't "teach the controversy"
• Let the facts speak for themselves
• Let the reader decide
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• NPOV tutorial
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Presentism
• Scientific consensus
• Scientific point of view
• Systemic bias
• Why NPOV?
• Wikipedia only reports what the sources say
• Ye shall know them by their sources

Articles

• Criticism of Wikipedia § Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
• Consensus reality
• Journalistic objectivity
• One-sided argument

Templates

• General NPOV templates:
  • {{POV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
  • {{POV section}}—message that tags only a single section as disputed
  • {{POV statement}}—message when only one sentence is questionable
  • {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
  • {{Political POV}}—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned
  • {{Fact or opinion}}—message when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution (e.g., "Jimmy Wales says")
  • {{Attribution needed}}—when in-text attribution should be added
• Undue-weight templates:
  • {{Undue weight}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
  • {{Undue weight section}}—same as above but to tag a section only
  • {{Undue weight inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only

References

explicitly. I may care about Lasso - but I also care about keeping faith with the standards of Wikipedia. I'll be making edits as I recognize them to ensure the philosophy of

"WP:WORDS" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:WORDS (disambiguation).

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias or imprecise meaning. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.

The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be. Some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts, e.g. claim in law. What matters is that articles should be well written and be consistent with the core content policies – Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations).

If you do not feel you can improve the problematic wording of an article yourself, a template message can be added to draw the attention of other editors to an article needing a cleanup.

Words that may introduce bias

Puffery

"Wikipedia:SUPER" redirects here. For subscripts and superscripts, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts.

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Wikipuffery

Words to watch: legendary, best, great, greatest, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal, prominent  ...

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it.

Peacock example:

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

Just the facts:

Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".^[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.^[2]

An article suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or, if an editor is unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template, such as {{Peacock term}}.

Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much. People responsible for "public spending" (the neutral term) can be loaded both ways, as "tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren" or "public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good".

Contentious labels

"MOS:MYTH" redirects here. For the WikiProject on mythology, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology.

"WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here. For special procedures on contentious topics, see WP:CTOP.

"WP:RACIST" redirects here. For the essay about bigots on Wikipedia, see WP:No Nazis. and WP:No racists.

See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Tone, and Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction

Words to watch: cult, racist, perverted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, neo-Nazi, -gate, pseudo-, controversial ...

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

The prefix pseudo- indicates something false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, e.g. Gamergate (harassment campaign), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.

For the term pseudoscience: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, if supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science.

For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Neologisms and new compounds, below.

Unsupported attributions

"WP:AWT" redirects here. For the title, see Wikipedia:Administrators without tools.

Words to watch: some people say, many people remember, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said, officially, is widely regarded as, X has been described as Y ...

Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony such as "Despite the fact that fishermen catch fish, they don't tend to find any" and damning with faint praise, like "It is known that person X is skilled in golf, but is inferior to person Y" have no place in Wikipedia articles.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}}, {{By whom}}, or similar templates to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the problem).

Expressions of doubt

"WP:ALLEGED" redirects here. For the policy on individuals accused of a crime, see WP:BLPCRIME.

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotation point of view

Words to watch: supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...   Also, scare-quoting: a Yale "report"; undue emphasis: "... a Baptist church"

Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Misused punctuation can also have similar effects. Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully.

Editorializing

"WP:EDITORIAL" redirects here. For the reliability of editorial sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations.

"MOS:OP-ED" redirects here. For policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED. For submission of editorials to the Wikipedia Signpost internal newsletter, see WP:OP-ED.

"WP:OFCOURSE" redirects here. For the essay which had the "OFCOURSE" shortcut prior to March 2021, see Wikipedia:Of course it's voting.

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Instructional and presumptuous language, and Wikipedia:It should be noted

Words to watch: notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, utterly, actually, only, clearly, absolutely, of course, without a doubt, indeed, happily, sadly, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely ...

Use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretive viewpoints and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually and the modifiers only and just, which imply something being contrary to expectations; make sure the expectation is verifiable and broadly shared rather than assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view on whether an event was fortunate or not.

This kind of persuasive writing approach is also against the Wikipedia:No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion) and the Instructional and presumptuous language guideline (Wikipedia does not break the fourth wall and write at the reader, other than with navigational hatnotes).

Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

Synonyms for said

Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, confirm ...

In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.

Said, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Stated is usually acceptable, especially in formal contexts (e.g., a declaration in court). Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.

To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

To avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose. Overuse of variation is also likely to introduce an unencyclopedic tone, unclarity, and even unintended humour or muddled metaphor.

Expressions that lack precision

See also: Wikipedia:Please clarify and Wikipedia:Vagueness

Euphemisms

"WP:EUPHEMISM" redirects here. For the essay advising bluntness, see WP:Call a spade a spade.

"WP:PASSEDAWAY" redirects here. For Wikipedians who have recently died, see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians.

Words to watch: passed away, gave her life, eternal rest, make love, an issue with, collateral damage ...

Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Died and had sex are neutral and accurate; passed away and made love are euphemisms. Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.

If a person has a medical condition, say just that, specifying the condition to the extent that is relevant and supported by appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language for more guidance on writing about medical conditions.

Norms vary for expressions about disabilities and disabled people. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. See also this essay by editors involved in WikiProject Disability.

Clichés and idioms

Words to watch: lion's share, tip of the iceberg, white elephant, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...

Clichés and idioms should generally be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, two-thirds, or whatever matches the context. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for discussions of icebergs. If something is seen as wasteful excess, do not call it gilding the lily or a white elephant; instead, describe the wasteful thing in terms of the actions or events that led to the excess. Instead of writing that someone took the plunge, state their action matter-of-factly.

In general, if a literal reading of a phrase makes no sense given the context, the sentence needs rewording. Some idioms are common only in certain parts of the world, and many readers are not native speakers of English; articles should not presume familiarity with particular phrases. Wiktionary has a long list of English idioms, some of which should be avoided.

Relative time references

See also: Wikipedia:As of § Precise language, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Statements likely to become outdated

Words to watch: recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, X years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, to this day, soon, since ...

Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By August 2025 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped", but the first sentence retains its meaning as time passes.

Recently type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: Was it in the last week? Month? Year? The information that "The current president, Alberto Fernández, took office in 2019", or "Alberto Fernández has been president since 2019", is better rendered "Alberto Fernández became president in 2019". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in 2008", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in 1960". If a direct quote contains relative time, ensure the date of the quote is clear, such as "Joe Bloggs in 2007 called it 'one of the best books of the last decade'".

When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way. There are also several templates for alerting readers to time-sensitive wording problems.

Expressions like "former", "in the past", and "traditionally" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources: instead of "hamburgers are a traditional American food", say "the hamburger was invented in about 1900 and became widely popular in the United States in the 1930s". Similarly, phrases such as "in recent years" or "in modern times" should be reworded to a more specific time or period, as far as can be determined from the sources, such as "since the 1990s" or "in the mid-2010s". If there are no sources, or the sources do not specify a time or period, a {{When}} template may be added to ask for clarification.

Because seasons differ between the northern and southern hemispheres, try to use months, quarters, or other non-seasonal terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Seasons of the year.

Unspecified places or events

Words to watch: this country, here, there, somewhere, sometimes, often, occasionally, somehow ...

As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones. It is better to use explicit descriptions, based on reliable sources, of when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying "In April 2012, Senator Smith somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%", say "In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which respondents attributed to his new position on foreign policy." Instead of saying "Senator Smith often discusses foreign policy in his speeches", say "Senator Smith discussed foreign policy during his election campaign, and subsequently during his victory speech at the State Convention Center."

Remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and does not assume particular places or times are the default. We emphasize facts and viewpoints to the same degree that they are emphasized by the reliable sources. Terms like this country should not be used.

Survived by

See also: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Words to watch: is/was survived by, [Name]'s survivors include,  ...

Phrasing such as "Smith died in 1982, survived by her husband Jack and two sons" should be avoided; this information can be made more complete and spread out through the article. The "survived by" phrasing is a common way to end newspaper obituaries and legal death notices, and is relevant at the time of death or for inheritance purposes. But an encyclopedia article covers the subject's entire life, not just their death, and information about children and spouses might be presented in an infobox or in sections about the subject's personal life. From such information readers can generally infer which family members died after the subject, so this information is not usually worth highlighting explicitly except in unusual situations (such as when children predecease their parents, or an inheritance is disputed).

Even in a stub article, a different arrangement with more details sounds more like an encyclopedia and less like an obituary: "Smith married Jack in 1957. The couple had two sons. She died in 1982."

Note also that to say "...survived by two children" doesn't prove that the subject only had two children; she might have had others who predeceased her. If so, obits will usually add "a third child died in infancy". Whether or not lack of mention of predeceasing children is sufficient for us to indicate that there weren't any is beyond the scope of this rule.

Person or office?

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Positions, offices, and occupational titles

It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office and an incumbent. A newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction; for a newspaper "President X" and "the President" are one and the same during X's presidency.

• President X nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court – No; whoever is US president at the time does.
• President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice – Yes, as this will always be true.
• The president nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice in 2005 – Yes, as the year makes this clear.
• The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable for events between Charles III's creation as Prince of Wales in 1958 and his accession to the throne in 2022, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely. In any event, "Charles, Prince of Wales" would usually be linked. The guest list included the Prince of Wales or The Duke and Duchess of Kent, while common in UK news sources, is ambiguous without a name.
• Former President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972 – This is incorrect because Nixon was not a former US president at the time; he was still in office. Write President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972. The construction then-President Nixon is often superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between periods of Nixon's career, other holders of the office, or between other people also named Nixon.

Neologisms and new compounds

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary § Neologisms, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Neopronouns and the singular they

Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. For instance, adding -ism or -ist to a word may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well-established, that a belief's adherents are particularly dogmatic or ideological (as in abortionism), or that factual statements are actually a matter of doctrine (as in evolutionism). Some words, by their structure, can suggest extended forms that may turn out to be contentious (e.g. lesbian and transgender imply the longer words lesbianism and transgenderism, which are sometimes taken as offensive for seeming to imply a belief system or agenda).

For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Contentious labels, above.

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 generally 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 script and Arabian horse, 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 both Arab and Muslim.

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

Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities

Main page: Wikipedia:Offensive material

Wikipedia is not censored, and the inclusion of material that might offend is compatible with its purpose as an encyclopedia. Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source. However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves an article topic.

See also

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language – precision matters, and Wikipedia cannot advise
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Subset terms – avoid redundant ones
• Wikipedia:Article titles – see especially the sections on neutrality and precision
• List of English idioms on Wiktionary

External links

• The Elements of Style – Words and Expressions Commonly Misused

has been held to the highest standard. Suggestions welcome!--Sean Stephens (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)