Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles		WikiProject Manual of Style
	v • d • e This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Shortcuts: WT:WORDS WT:WTA

Archives
April 2002 – October 2005 November 2005 – May 2006 May 2006 – December 2007 January 2008 – June 2008 July 2008 – December 2008

Contents 1 The more complicated terrorist issue 1.1 Use when the subject of the article considers it to be so 1.2 Use as shorthand 1.3 Use for listing 1.4 Don't see the difference 2 Formal request to consider "concede" the same as "admit" 3 Unwieldy example? 4 Marketing language 5 Suggestion: "Welcomed" when used to describe a birth 6 "Is the name of"

[edit] The more complicated terrorist issue

I think it is fairly clear from the section above that there is a broad consensus against using terrorist as an unqualified term in the context of an article like Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, etc. There is general agreement that it is much better to say who considers the group/person/act to be terrorist in nature. Similarly, it appears to be a matter of no controversy that the word terrorism is appropriate in the article on Terrorism or War on Terrorism.

I am afraid, however, that we have neglected several other ways of using the word terrorist that may be much more controversial. I don't mean for this list to be exhaustive, but I've grouped together a few such categories for you to have a look at.

[edit] Use when the subject of the article considers it to be so

Consider, for example, the article on the United States Department of the Treasury. From the article: "Congress transfered several agencies which had previously been under the aegis of the Treasury department to other departments as a consequence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Clearly from the perspective of the US Government, and thus the Department of the Treasury, 9/11 was a terrorist act. Thus, it seems appropriate to use the word "terrorist" here, although doing so is a form of labeling that is not completely agreed on. We could simply say "September 11, 2001 attacks", but that leaves something out. The Department of the Treasury was changed because Congress, the President, and the American people considered 9/11 an act of terrorism.

Take a look also at New York City Police Department#Line of duty deaths which lists 24 deaths of NYPD officers due to "terrorist attack". Clearly in the eyes of the NYPD, all of those incidents were acts of terrorism. Nonetheless, not everyone would have considered them terrorism. Is it then appropriate to call them "Terrorist attack"? Do we have to say "alleged terrorist attack"?

There is no difficulty here. The treasury article should not refer to the attacks with that language. The article on these attacks, September 11 attacks, does not use the word "terrorist" in the title. Nor do any of the many daughter articles, such as Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks and Casualties of the September 11 attacks. The word "terrorist" is used within these articles in Wikipedia's voice, and so these will need to be cleaned up. Every instance of the use of "terrorist" should really have attribution, unless the word is part of an organization, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The first of those (which you addressed) is the clearer one. What about in the NYPD article? Cool3 (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem does not arise, because the labels have attribution (see link at the top of the table, the source of the information). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I can attribute the phrase "September 11 terrorist attacks". As a matter of fact I can attribute it to 478,000 different sources in exactly that wording ([1]). Does that mean I can say September 11 Terrorist Attacks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

That is the essence of the discussion here. My answer would be a definite no. Some people would say "yes", but only if a specific citation was provided. The problem with that approach is that a citation should be provided for every use of the word - that's why it is better to avoid the word completely (which is why this page is called "words to avoid", I suppose). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew your answer would be no. So my point is, why is it okay to say it because of the attribution in the NYPD case, but not in the 9/11 case? Cool3 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because in the NYPD example, it is the NYPD saying "terrorism". In the 9/11 example, it is Wikipedia saying "terrorist". You see the difference? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. In the 9/11 case it was the US government of which the Dept. of the Treasury is a part calling 9/11 terrorist. Where's the difference? Cool3 (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Er... no. That's Wikipedia's voice. In fact, the link in that article redirects to the less POV title "September 11 attacks". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So in your opinion, if I just put a <ref> Something </ref> next to that in Dept. of the Treasury article it's no longer Wikipedia's voice? The NYPD chart that we are discussing has nothing more than a reference. "Terrorist attack" isn't in quotation marks or anything. Cool3 (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well being a table, it's sort of a special case (so not a great example). You could describe the entire table as a referenced quotation. In fact, I'm not entirely happy with what has been done there, and it sort of seems like a form of synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, the table is more acceptable because it's not calling anyone or anything specific a terrorist? Just a thought based on some things below. Cool3 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful about making too much of an occasional use of the word. A single instance of a single government actor using the word terrorism is not necessarily an official decision by the agency. A closer case where the community decided to mention that the government calls a group terrorist without saying so in Wikipedia's voice and without calling it a designation: The FBI, in a "blast from the past" history page,[2] (pun intended - they use the far worse pun, "byte" from the past) the FBI refers to the Weatherman Organization as "domestic terrorists" - a label that many including the former group members deny. Elsewhere the FBI calls them "homegrown terrorists". However, this is not an official designation because although such a list exists today there was no official FBI roster of terrorists when the group existed, and the FBI does not see fit to add disbanded groups to the list. Poking around, the FBI and its high officials call the group "terrorist" in quite a few very visible places and in speeches, so I think it's safe to conclude that this is an official FBI position, not just a random thing somebody said once. If the NYPD calls people terrorists, you would have to look at several issues closely: is it an official position they are taking, is it an official designation or list, is this list noteworthy, is the fact that this particular agency takes this particular position really relevant to the subject of the article, and then the usual WP:RS / WP:PSTS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, etc., concerns. Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We must never allow the word be applied to anyone as a fact; it is always a perjoritive term. People have claimed that they were Nazis many times; nobody has ever, to my knowledge, claimed they were a "terrorist". Example of the Pandora's Box we could open here: in whole swathes of the globe the MSM refers to Israeli/American soldiers as terrorists (and worse) - imagine trying to get references to "Jewish terrorists", "Zionist terrorists" or "American terrorists" into Wiki articles about the ME on the basis that it's what the local Arabic MSM calls them? Sarah777 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Going to great pains not to refer to a terrorist individual or organization as "terrorist" seems absurd for an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should refer to a thing as what it is, it should not worry about whether someone may consider that thing to be a pejorative or not. The encyclopedia is not judging; it is classifying. See Wikipedia:SPADE and the Duck test referenced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.198.220 (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use as shorthand

This is probably less likely to be acceptable, but it's still another category where it may be legitimate to use the term terrorist. When a relatively large number of people consider a group/person/act to be terrorism, is it appropriate to refer to it as terrorism in unrelated articles where "covering the controversy" would take an unreasonable amount of space? For example, in an article on Simon Reeve (UK television presenter), the following sentence "Published in the UK and USA in the late 1990s, The New Jackals was the first book on bin Laden. Classified information cited by Reeve detailed the existence, development, and aims of the terrorist group al-Qaeda." It's far too wordy and confusing to say "the group al-Qaeda which x,y, and z consider a terrorist organization but a,b, and c do not" and it just detracts from what is actually being discussed. Similarly, if we just say "the group al-Qaeda", we're not providing the reader with enough information. The reader gets no sense of what al-Qaeda is, or the significance of it, unless some sort of identifier is used. In this context "terrorist" gives the reader some context, and if he wants the full story, he can go to to the full article.

Take a second case (hypothetical). Person X supplied money to Hezbollah and ended up in legal trouble as a result. The article reads "X was investigated by the police for providing money to the terrorist group Hezbollah." If this is changed to just "X was investigated by the police for providing money to Hezbollah", it doesn't make any sense at all if you don't know what Hezbollah is. You think, what's wrong with giving money to Hezbollah? Similarly, in this context it distracts from the main point to "cover the controversy", if the article goes on about how Hezbollah may or may not be a terrorist group, you'd come away thinking, so why did the police investigate him if not everyone thinks they're a terrorist group?

Yet in practice, there will nearly always be ways around the problem. "Reeve detailed the activities of al-Qaeda, considered by many to be a growing terrorist threat." "X gave money to Hezbollah, which the Brobdingnagian government had ruled an illegal terrorist group." With sources, of course. Barnabypage (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no problem. The offending sentence should be changed to say: "Classified information cited by Reeve detailed the existence, development, and aims of al-Qaeda." We have blue links that lead to the additional information that you are concerned the reader might not be getting. There is no need for Wikipedia to characterize the group. The same applies to the Hezbollah thing. I have no idea what you mean by "it doesn't make any sense." It makes sense to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A good article tells you everything you need to know about the subject without having to click on the links. So, I think there is an imperative to provide some summary. Pretend you've never heard of Hezbollah. Now you see "X was sent to prison for giving money to Hezbollah". If no explanation is offered as to why, then I'd be pretty darn confused. Sure, I could click on the link, but if we just let you get all your information from the links, then our articles would be a lot shorter. A good article summarizes everything that is relevant. Cool3 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No. That is not the definition of a good article. That way of thinking has been a major problem for Wikipedia, and the result is ridiculously long articles - the opposite of what you claim. You end up with shocking redundancy, where the same details are repeated over and over again in multiple articles. Blue links rock! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to direct you to the featured article criteria, specifically 1 b : "It is ... comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Cool3 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Context" is a very ambiguous term though. Consider the following (admittedly ridiculous) example:

The attackers flew a plane into a building. Buildings are man-made structures used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy. Planes are heavier-than-air aircraft capable of flight whose lift is generated not by wing motion relative to the aircraft, but by forward motion through the air. A wing is a surface used to produce lift for flight through the air or another gaseous or fluid medium.

You see where I'm going with this? "The attackers flew a plane into a building" is better. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point that how much context is necessary is subjective. If every article gave all the context, then there would only be one article and it would contain everything. I suppose, then, that our disagreement centers around whether or not it's relevant context to say in the example that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. I maintain that it is. Without that information, I have no idea why X got in trouble. Thinking about it more, though, this may not be the best example as you could always just say if X is British "which the British government considers to be a terrorist organization" which gives even better information. Personally, I'm not really in favor of using the word terrorist in this sense most of the time, I was just trying to start the discussion, and this seemed like one possible category. Cool3 (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - great minds think alike) Yes and no. First, most articles are not featured articles, and cherry-picking an aspect of a featured article for context on the specific point of terrorism leads to an undue emphasis on terrorism. More importantly, adding context does not mean fully explaining everything. Complete context would mean putting the entirety of Wikipedia in every article because every fact is connected one way or another to every other fact in the world. I've found that the best way to handle wikilinks is to explain two things via the link and surrounding text: (1) identifying the subject of the link, and (2) specifying only the additional information that is unique or relevant to its association to the subject of the article. For example, suppose for some reason it is useful in an article to note that Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of Tiger Woods (I just made this up, please don't look for any special significance here). Most people in the world have heard of Tiger Woods so to satisfy issue #1, identification, the link alone is probably sufficient. However, if we needed more information to add to the link to identify him, we could say something like "American golfer [[Tiger Woods]]". We do not need to introduce him with unnecessary phrases like "biracial American golfer [[Tiger Woods]]" or "American golfer and 2007 PGA tour leader [[Tiger Woods]]".... or (you know where I'm going with this, don't you?)... "Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of biracial American golfer, 2007 PGA tour leader, and unrepentant terrorist [[Tiger Woods]]". Regarding point #2, context, we might say something like "Ann Coulter is a childhood friend of [[Tiger Woods]], who shared her love for collecting golf memorabilia..." but not add a coatrack statement about terrorism. It would truly have to be relevant. I hope that conveys the point. Wikidemon (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance should be a factor. If Person X is charged with giving money to Hezbollah, it is because there is a local law against giving material aid to a terrorist organisation (as locally legally defined) NOT to a group named Hezbollah (or John's Club). So "charged with aiding the terrorist organisation Hezbollah" explains WHY the X was charged, and puts into context which one he helped (Hezbollah, not Hamas or the IRA). The link to Hezbollah can then explain the circumstances of how they got to be so designated in that country.

While I agree every phrase cannot be explained in every article, each one should make sense on its own. Every second word being a link (taking ages to load and taking the reader on excessively detailed detours) makes articles unintelligible for those not already familiar with the topic in its broad outlines. A simple "terrorist group" before a name (or "bollywood actor" or "disgraced businessman" or "convicted killer")saves the reader a lot of link-flipping to get the gist. KoolerStill (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use for listing

It would be pretty uncontroversial to say in an article: "Professor X is a respected scholar of terrorism and terrorist groups". That's what Professor X does for a living and it's just a fact. If, however, you add more information to the article, it could become a problem. What if you say "Professor X is a respected scholar of terrorist groups, such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army." Not everyone agrees that the IRA is a terrorist group, but in the context of the article it makes sense to write this way. Professor X is a scholar of terrorism and he studies the IRA.

Well, I'll leave these for your thoughts and responses, but I think they really do need dealing with as they're likely to be less clear than what we've been discussing so far. Cool3 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the "what if" question here is simple. You don't. There is no need to provide an example. Examples are provided in the articles covering terrorism. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So if a terrorism scholar studies the IRA, we just leave that out? Cool3 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Addendum: To be clear, the above was referring not to a scholar who studies all groups, but rather to someone who specializes in one group. Sorry, re-reading what I wrote, I see that didn't come through. Take the sentence "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups who focuses his research on the IRA". Cool3 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an unlikely construct. You might describe someone as a scholar of terrorism (if they are described thus by a reliable source), and then separately note the organizations that scholar studies. It sounds like a long winded way of doing it, but it ensures that Wikipedia does get involved in characterizing organizations. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your edited comment, "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups who focuses his research on the IRA," sounds reasonable, but in fact it isn't. The two clauses should be separated at the very least. "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups. The focus of his research is the IRA". Even then, both sentences would need citations. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups who focuses his research on U.S. diplomacy" would not, to most people, imply that U.S. diplomats are terrorists - we would presume he was studying diplomatic responses to terrorism, or perhaps diplomats as victims. The IRA example given by Scjessey really only carries an implication for readers who are determined to find one (either to agree with or to argue with). Barnabypage (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure you can cite both sentences and stick a period in there, but there is still an obvious implication to it that the IRA is a terrorist group. Cool3 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I would not do it that way. It's lazy writing. The problem can be easily avoided by writing around it. For example, "Professor X is a scholar of terrorist groups. The focus of his research is the IRA, a group which he describes as a terrorist organization.^{[citation needed]}" -- Scjessey (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's the way to go, but it seems like overkill. If X is a terrorism scholar, it's quite obvious that he would study groups that he considers terrorist organizations. That said, perhaps we do have to throw in the extra clause for the sake of NPOV. Cool3 (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Either the scholar is a sociologist/politologist and studies "terrorismology". In this case it is perfectly normal to also study boarderline case like the Résistance, or "liberation groups" in general, since they are tightly interwoven with "terrorists". An example sentence might be: "X is a sociologist specializing in terrorism, liberation groups and related phenomena. He concentrates on the Northern Irish conflict. ... " Another possibility is that the scholar is a historian, who does not care much about theoretical approaches to terrorism. In this case, well, don't mention terrorism. "X is a historian specializing in the Northern Irish conflict with a special focus on the IRA, its history and development." One could add "He argues that the IRA is (not) a terrorist group because blabla". That should solve all problems of POV by a) giving a wider context in the first case and b) attribution in the second one. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Don't see the difference

If the word terrorist is so controversial, why is it uncontroversial to say in an article: "Professor X is a respected scholar of terrorism and terrorist groups"? All the reader has to do is look at the groups Professor X studies, and know that by definition they are terrorist groups. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You really don't think we should say "Professor X studies terrorism?" It is a simple and uncontroversial fact that there is such a thing as terrorism (which is why for example we have an article on it). What's controversial is what things/people/groups/events/etc qualify as terrorism. In the academic community they don't have the same rules that we do about NPOV, so someone like Bruce Hoffman is called a terrorism scholar and he classifies some people/groups as terrorism on a professional basis. If we don't call him a terrorism scholar, then what on earth is he? Or am I just totally out of line with what other people think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing wrong with saying "Professor X studies terrorism," and I don't think Matisse is suggesting otherwise. The problem comes with a sentence like "Professor X studies terrorism, such as the Mumbai attacks." That "inadvertently" labels the Mumbai attacks as an act of terrorism. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we avoid it though? Cool3 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

By writing it properly in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my question. How do properly write an article about someone who studies terrorism and focuses on the Mumbai attacks without saying or implying that the Mumbai attacks were terrorism? I suggest, however, that as this discussion largely mirrors what we are saying directly above, that we pick one thread or the other and consolidate further discussion there. Cool3 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An example for you. Setting aside the matter of ungainly prose, it might be okay to say "Perez Hilton writes frequently about embarrassing things stars do", but I think it would be a BLP violation, and a statement of opinion to be avoided, to say "Perez Hilton writes frequently about embarrassing things stars like Lindsey Lohan do." If per the weight of the sources a professor truly does have a research concentration on terrorism, why not say so? Saying so does not endorse his opinions, or call anyone a terrorist except in the most indirect way. I suspect that is less common than one might think - professors probably avoid loaded words in describing their research for the same reason we do, they want to stick to the facts. This probably comes up in a lot of other instances. Some professors study mental illness, some study moral corruption, some study criminality, and some study infidelity or lying. Professors study lots of things that one probably should not call people on Wikipedia in most cases.Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So we agree, then, that is acceptable to say "Professor X studies terrorism", right? Cool3 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, because it does not specifically label anyone or any group. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be no problem with any wording as long as the sources are reliable and the article sticks to WP:ASF. This applies to every article and i fail to see why these are any different if the label of 'terrorism' is to be considered an opinion only. --neon white talk 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should say "X studies terrorism and related phenomena". This would take away the problems of implication, and every serious scholar of terrorism should also consider boarderline cases to delimit the topic of his study. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be other, more precise formulations as well, depending on the nature of the research, "X studies asymmetrical warfare", "X studies postcolonial independence movements", "X studies identity formation and conflicts in the postmodern context", "X studies the social conditions leading to armed conflicts", "X studies strategies to oppose terrorist tactics", "X studies foreign policy options to minimize threats for the US". The sloppy "X studies terrorism" does not sound very scientific to me, it is too broad. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism studies is an academic subject [3]. --neon white talk 12:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that program study terrorism in the abstract, or does it analyze concrete examples e.g. specific groups? If specific groups are analyzed, then could we use such programs and scholars to define what groups are considered terrorist? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters. It just seems reasonable when talking about someone's background to say they studied for a masters in terrorism studies at X university. I am certain that it would be impossible to study terrorism, whether within a law or socialogy context, to avoid case studies of particular groups or persons. The major point is that if an expert on such a subject referred to a group as 'terrorist' then what grounds do we have for not attributing a noteworthy opinion or the legal standing of groups or persons in US or any other jurisdiction as part of an article as opposed to ignoring it because a 'banned' term is used. Where does it leave article like Charities accused of ties to terrorism? --neon white talk 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All that matters is this: Wikipedia must not label people or groups as terrorists. Nor should it label attacks as terrorism. The label must come from an external source with the appropriate citation. Wikipedia must remain completely neutral, or lose credibility. So instead of "X is a terrorist," Wikipedia should say "X has been described by Y as a terrorist," cited appropriately. Instead of "X committed acts of terror," Wikipedia should say "Acts committed by X were described by Y as terrorism," cited appropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all covered in core policy. If there is controversy or dispute, cover that in the article. --neon white talk 15:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very sympathetic to that argument, and its the only compelling one so far. However, WTA's reason for existence is precisely as an extension of WP:NPOV, a clarification of generally accepted principles - there is no incompatibility between core policy, and guidelines that interpreted. If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no reason for any guideline to exist: the community overwhelmingly agree this is a Bad Idea, WP:CREEP be damned. And as long as it does, WP:TERRORISM would make sense. However, the other points you have raised are irrelevant: we can always follow the only rule that matters: WP:IAR. I am all for consensus.--Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

All I believe that there needs to be a distinct description of the word choice that is used throughout Wikipedia. People can confuse terms or may get offended by the use of certain terms. I am new to Wikipedia, but I would not want to offend anyone when I make a comment or post to an article. Are the guidelines "clearly" stated in the Wikipedia policy? If not, how can we make them better? P!nkPolkaDots (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem here starts with Prof X. He needs to be described as studying what he calls "terrorism". Then you can talk about the organisations he studies. If he studies the IRA and the IRA is not a terrorist group, then you are saying "Prof X studies terrorism; amongst the organisations he studies are the Red Cross and Mother Thereas's Order". You can't state that he is studying 'terrorism' without implying the groups he studies are terrorist; hence his claim/beleif that what he is studying is terrorism must be stated as merely a claim he makes (or is made in relation to him). Sarah777 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Formal request to consider "concede" the same as "admit"

We currently list "Admit, confess, deny" as potentially biased words. I added "concede", which User:Neon white reverted for no apparent reason beyond the WP:BOLD nature of the edit. Fine: Here's a formal request that we no longer exclude "concede", as in "He conceded that there were errors in the military intelligence", a statement exactly as bad as "He admitted that there were errors in the military intelligence", in this list.

Also, "acknowledge" might also be a similarly inappropriate word, as in "He acknowledged errors in the military intelligence". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I clearly stated the reason in the edit summary, please do not misrepresrent other editors actions. We cannot allow editors to add words to this article at will. There needs to be a consensus. --neon white talk 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can, because Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy, and it is not necessary to get explicit permission before improving a page. See also what the editing policy says on this point:

"Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles. In fact, some Wikipedians think you should not wait at all—simply change an article immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion is only needed if someone voices disagreement."

Note that said disagreement is supposed to be with the substance of the changes, not with the failure to seek advance permission for making a change that you agree with. Consensus, in fact, demands that you not revert improvements that you personally agree with, because the simplest consensus is the one in which a change is made, and nobody happens to disagree with it enough to revert it.

So: Do you have an actual problem with 'concede', a synonym for 'admit', being considered potentially as objectionable as 'admit'? Or do you just have a good-faith, but misplaced, bureaucratic complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit the logic of your argument, assuming your premises -- which are the same as those that put "admit, confess, deny" up on the WTA page. The point is, there are almost no words in the English language that can't be used to convey some non-neutral meaning. WTA is expanding to be a massive list of "words used in rhetoric," which is not only pointless, but destructive and a royal pain to people using this guideline to review articles for GA status and the like. I was initially drawn to this guideline by a particular controversy, but since then I've taken up doing GA reviews, and I would remark that checking each article against every word on the list is undoubtedly the most unproductive, aggravating, and pointless portion of the GA review process. Ray^Talk 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say remove that section. Verbal chat 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this section serves a valid purpose. I've been reminded of it because of a current dispute, in which an editor has repeatedly attempted to characterize a normal statement in a scientific paper (reiterating limitations to their previous work, but asserting confidence in the conclusion) as "retracting" the study, and "conceding" problems. This is both untrue (as the conclusion was affirmed) and a wildly biased way of naming limitations in the study.

The point of this section isn't to ban the words or to increase bureaucratic hassles (Verbal, if you're basically familiar with this page's contents, and you don't see actual problems, then your GA reviews do not require you to follow this page like a pre-flight checklist); it's to keep the rest of us from having to retype this information on dozens of individual talk pages, with endless explanations about how biased and factive substitutes for "said" must not be used to push a POV in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you support a move to fork this guideline, keep a basic summary of good style and concern as WP:WTA, and leave the rest in a separate guideline that's not part of the Good Article criteria, then? Ray^Talk 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of this guideline is a historical misnomer. It isn't a list of every word that should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, nor is every word that appears here a word that should never appear in a Wikipedia article. Instead it is a style guideline to help editors write better articles, and help reviewers identify potential problems. Words like "concede" and "retract" can cause similar problems to "admit" and "deny", but whether any of these words are problematic in any particular usage is a matter for rational discussion aimed at improving the encyclopedia. There is no point in expanding this guideline to cover every possible eventuality, as article editing is done by human beings, not machines. The only reason for changing this guideline is if it does not clearly articulate why some words are problematic, or does not help editors spot problematic phrasing. The guideline isn't here to quote as a tool to win an argument. Geometry guy 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the name of this article been up for discussion before? "Use of controversial terms" would be far better in my opinion. --neon white talk 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in mine. This is a style guideline. It isn't about controversy, but about misusing words. Often words mislead unintentionally, and editors need advice on how to spot problems and choose their words better. They don't need advice on handling controversy: we have an entire policy devoted to that. Geometry guy 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not suggest the title should be 'handling controversy', i clearly suggested 'use of controversial words'. This article certainly concerns the use of contentious and controversial words, read the lead paragraph, it's not about 'avoiding' such words as the titles suggests. If the words werent controversial we wouldnt have this page. --neon white talk 10:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Ray's proposal. Move the rest to a FAQ or something. Verbal chat 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for this guideline to have an FAQ or something similar, with essay status. It might help us to shorten the guideline as well. Geometry guy 21:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible suggestion. One problem I see is that one function of WP:WTA is to extinguish (nearly) all discussions about the term "Terrorist". I think this is an important function (I am editing Sri Lankan topics, and if we had no WP:TERRORIST, everything would descend into flame and edit wars). If this part is demoted to essay, then it does no longer cut short these discussions. Still, I agree that there are at least three things here that should be separated, and can probably disentangled: 1) MOS issues 2) a list of words which fall under 1, with some explanation 3) a knock-out against "Terrorist" discussions. Not all of these need to be discussed on the same page, or have equal status for that matter, but I would appreciate if the terrorist thing could remain a guideline. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to giving the FAQ guideline status; the goal of this particular proposal is to make the guideline useful to people reviewing for style. Ray^Talk 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this old, but, I came out thinking, we are sacrificing the need to fight systemic bias because it is inconvenient for GA reviewers? I am sorry, but if GA reviewing were easy, more people would do it. The argument is patently invalid: suck it up. If you have any other argument am willing to hear it, but the argument that there is no possible unbiased (which is not the same as neutral, albeit similar) formulations and that this is make work is an underhanded and patient strategy to undermine WTA and introduce bias into wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "concede" should definitely be added to WP:AVOID.Vitaminman (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't actually think of a single example in which concede would be appropriate. (I exclude direct quotations.)

Admit, currently listed, can be used in entirely neutral ways: Theater tickets often say "admit one person". Physicians "admit" patients to the hospital. Courts of law "admit" evidence. It's only in the "opposite of deny" sense that admit has the potential to be a problem. This is one of the many reasons why GA and FA reviewers can't assume that the presence of a listed word is necessarily inappropriate. (If that's all it took, then we'd have a bot produce a report on it, and eliminate the fallible human step.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unwieldy example?

This quote doesn't seem clear to me: '"At just three years out of law school, Griffin's family requested that Scarborough represent him at his trial."'. Could anyone recommend changes, or does it seem correct?

On an unrelated note to the above, I was wondering if anyone had any information on the usage of the term "terrorist". I've noted that David Aaronovich of The Times has referred to it in a past article, where the same actions against civilians were classed as either "killings" or "suicide bombings". I think this came from various commentators depending on their bias and the faction committing the act. I feel the neutral depiction is a fair mediation to avoid bias, as long as it can be upheld. That is, rather than using the term 'paramilitary' as an epithet for some and 'volunteer' for others, again depending on the editor. 92.5.140.104 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "Just three years after Scarborough graduated from law school, Griffin's family requested that he represent Griffin at his trial." The second "Griffin" is a bit unwieldy, of course, and you could substitute "Joe" or "the accused murderer" or some other form of words as appropriate.

The one word you might want to think a bit about in that example, however, is "just". Unless it is evidently remarkable that the request was made only three years after he left law school, "just" might constitute a bit of editorialising and you might be best to leave it out. But in a case like "He managed to defeat the entire Roman Empire armed just with a pair of scissors", it's probably acceptable!

On your other query - this has been debated at great length - see WP:TERRORIST. I believe there's a fairly firm guideline in place now. Barnabypage (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing language

I thought there was a section on that here, but this does not seem to be the case. I think words like "seamless", "solution". "state-of-the art", "fit", "next generation" etc, which are rampant in marketing speech, should also be included as WTA. The reason for this is POV-policy, of course Jasy jatere (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I'd be favor of banning them just on grounds of bad style. Ray^Talk 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, solution is already mentioned as a WTA (in the marketing context). See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Solutions, and yes the other ones do seem like they should generally be avoided, but of course they all have multiple meanings: State of the art is a copyright term (see Prior art; fit can mean many things: "The jacket fit well"; and next generation has many uses: "Members of the next generation of rabbits were larger than their parents." Cool3 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Cool3. Ray^Talk 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: "Welcomed" when used to describe a birth

I was reading Bruce Springsteen's article, and it felt weird to read that "Springsteen and Scialfa welcomed their first child" --it seems similar to why we avoid terms like "passed away" when dealing with death. Any agreement? --Bobak (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It's an unnecessary (and in some cases, undoubtedly, inaccurate) bit of floweriness. Barnabypage (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Is the name of"

I think this should be added to the list. It's a benign phrase by itself, but it often shows poor writing. Too many times I have seen "X is the name of Y" when it can be substituted with "X is Y" or "The X is Y", even in featured articles (e.g.: "Main sequence is the name for a continuous and distinctive band of stars that appear on plots of stellar color versus brightness." against "The main sequence is a continuous and distinctive band of stars that appear on plots of stellar color versus brightness."). Please note this does not apply to where we have articles about names themselves. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)