Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 2

message: I feel as though the pop-culture terminology of "cult" should be addressed, even if it is or might be considered slang.  I was considering writing something along the lines of, "In popular culture, the word "cult" refers to a celebrity or a work--usually one with a limited following--which has a driven fanbase."  Does that seem to fit or is it too slanted in one way or another?--Epiphone83
:You raise a good point. Cult (disambiguation) and Cult following address the word's use in a context of pop culture to some extent. Your definition seems pretty even-handed to me. It's not a page I follow closely, but your observation might make a useful addition to Cult following. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult

message: I don't know what these examples are doing here as they ought to be defined and described in the Terrorism and Shining Path (SL) articles themselves.
For me to interpret and apply these examples I'd have to know:
#If SL identifies themselves as terrorists. (i.e. a literal admission)
#If SL admits to targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action. (i.e. a functional admission)
#If SL explicitly denies being terrorists.
#If SL denies targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action. 
#If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is terrorist.
#If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is not terrorist.
#The examples cite countries which list SL as terrorist, what countries list SL as a political or economic or other type of organization?
#For those, other than SL itself, who would argue that SL is/is not terrorist -- Who are they? And what about their argument is verifiable and cited?
Jmabel assumes far too much fact and opinion about the SL for the examples given to be useful to a general case.  The assertions made in the article about "consensus" and "context" are not sufficiently abstract to be called a "guideline".
The leader of the SL might have written or declared "SL is a terrorist group", which makes it perfectly acceptable to any standard of editing I am familiar with to write without qualification "SL is a terrorist group". patsw 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know: do others find the example useful or confusing? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism Examples 

message: I should probably explain that I got these ideas from the way other highly respected resources are edited. I could research it and provide references to what Webster and the editors of Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary had to say on the subject if that's required. --Peter McConaughey 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: :Perhaps you could start with the following sentence and explain what you find wrong with it: "The cited information may disagree with the reader's beliefs, but the narrative voice must never draw conclusions asserting something that the reader could find offensive or controversial." --Peter McConaughey 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain exactly what that sentence means? I'm not sure I'm parsing it the way you intended. Carbonite | Talk 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a definition of the "narrative voice" is required. I'm not saying anything different than has already been said in NPOV and other Wikipedia policies: we can reference things that are POV, but the article can't state them as fact. --Peter McConaughey 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reader's beliefs

message: "Our job is to make the information contained within an article believable."
:This sentence may need to be expanded to clarify. In order to have any motivation to look up a word in a particular encyclopedia, you need to trust the encyclopedia. You don't have to trust the sources that are cited, but you need to trust the "narrative voice" citing them. The article itself can't say that the cited author is correct if there is any chance that the reader will disagree. Otherwise, the reader will no longer trust the encyclopedia, thereby destroying all of the other articles contained within that might have been written from a perfectly acceptable neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article is sort of a "Neutrality for Dummies." I didn't create it. I was just trying to clarify. There was a whole project on the use of the word "terrorism" a few years ago. I don't have time to find it right now, but we pretty much decided to avoid using that term outside of a cited quote. It only causes problems and isn't needed to get the point across. Please edit anything I wrote, but I would prefer if you didn't delete it outright. I think something is needed to give a sense of the big picture (for those who don't like dummies books). I'll see you when I get back from Aspen. --Peter McConaughey 18:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Our job as editors

message: Go gently. I think this is a better way to have the page, in organisational terms. I've tried to also sharpen up the examples and text to be more useful as a reference, without introducing controversial changes to any stated view.
For example, what is important about both cult and myth is not that one is a common POV word and the other has technical meanings. It's that both have multiple meanings and therefore can be ambiguous or misleading when used, if not used carefully. So I have grouped them together under "Words with controversial or multiple meanings".
It takes into account many comments made on this talk page, and its main features are:
* Groups words slightly differently
* Standardizing - putting the actual words in each section header so they are easily found
* Including clearly marked "unacceptable / acceptable" examples with explanation, as a direct reference source for users, as well as the discussions.
* Is strictly in line with policy AFAIK
Please if in doubt, discuss here briefly first. A fair bit of thought and work went into it. I think that the structure and standardization of format is improved, and that's important. The actual wording can and probably always should be improved.
FT2 05:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page rework

message: This page is not a guide to help editors write more neutrally. The recent edits are making the page all about neutrality of presentation. We already have lots of pages about that, some of which contradict material added here.  
This page is not official Wikipedia policy. 
Finally, this page is not a court of appeals for editors who are dissatisfied with the consensus on another page. In the past some have come here hoping to add things they could then use to support their position on another page. I would not care to see that happen again.
Tom Harrison (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What this page is not

message: Quick note regarding the "double negative" edit on "terrorism". The edit reads: "There is not a consensus that terrorist or terrorism may never be used to describe a person or act".
I have thought hard, and deleted this. My reasons are as follows:
# There *is* a clear consensus that the term "terrorist" is pejorative and an opinion usually applied by one side and denied by the other. This is made clear by consensus on both terrorism ("many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc") and definition of terrorism ("often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified... Because of the above pejorative connotations...")
# There is a clear view that terms implying pejoratives or viewpoints, are not neutral and should be aoided as labels (WP:NPOV)
# Other probably-pejorative terms are by and large avoided in other articles.
# The Al-Qaeda article avoids using Wikipedia's voice to label Al-Qaeda "a terrorist organisation" (a body considered by many people and governments to be confirmed "terrorist").
# It is clear that many other sources such as the media (outside the USA) attempt to avoid labelling organisations as "terrorist" for similar reasons.
# The time it is okay to label a person as terrorist, is when its in the words of a cited source and attributed to that source (as opposed to in Wikipedia's voice). But that is already covered and fully made clear in the article.
# All words on this page carry the caveat that they aren't "never to be used" - that's made clear in the header and intro sections. So the need to make clear it isn't saying "never" is already taken care of as well.
# Because of the above, this double-negative is a statement that goes too far. Yes there is no consensus that it may "never" be used. But it look likely that it should probably "almost never" be used (other than as a citation in some named voice). The reason for this is that it "almost always" implies some judgement or POV.
FT2 00:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Double negative edit

message: How do you all feel about "interestingly"? Joyous | Talk 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another word 

message: This is the article intro on that term (minor edits for brevity):
:A conspiracy theory is an account of a social or natural phenomena, according to which some organization or individual has deliberately deceived public opinion in connection with some event. The term is also used by academics to identify a type of folklore with certain regular features. In common usage, the term loosely refers to misconceived, paranoid or disproven rumours, similar in many respects to urban legend. In almost all cases, believers in a particular account vigorously reject the classification of their belief as a conspiracy theory, implying as it does that their beliefs are false. Such classification may be seen as an attempt to use ridicule to evade a serious allegation, leading to controversy over legitimate uses of the term.
This offers at least 3 meanings, and makes clear that the common understanding is a pejorative one and that it is usually rejected as a pejorative label when applied. In this sense it functions linguistically almost identically to "terrorist" or "myth" in some ways in that it is almost inevitably a description from the point of view of "outside the belief". It does not imply neutrality.
If it was added, I'd put it under "words that are controversial or have multiple meanings, something like this:
:"A conspiracy theory is a term often used to describe a belief that some official story (usually of some event) is incorrect, usually that some powerful body or individual has used their influence to establish an untrue version of events as "the truth". Thus it has a neutral meaning of "alternate ideas" or "other speculations". In everyday use it carries an implication of falseness and is often seen by proponents or others as a label ridiculing an idea to avoid serious discussion of the issues it raises. A substantial number of people will read "Conspiracy theory" as implying or tending to favor this meaning, even if technically this is inaccurate. The term "alternative theory" or "unofficial theory" or simply "other theories" is likely to be considered more neutral, even if "conspiracy theory" is sometimes technically also a correct and legitimate term.
Before we get too deeply into conspiracy theory, it might be useful to review the archived discussions. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were lengthy discussions on this in September, as zen-master is well aware, and the consensus was strongly against its inclusion.  In fact, if you review the archive, you'll find that fully half of the archive is devoted to the discussion of this. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's obviously similar to "terrorist" and "sect". Thus I agree that it's good to advice to limit its use in a similar way. Harald88 13:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested wording if agreed by consensus to add this?

message: Oops, major omission I think.
* "X is strongly associated with Y"
* "A have close ties with B"
Whats the technical term for these, because they probably belong in here somewhere? FT2 07:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strengtheners and weakeners

message: Not of widespread interest, I'm sure, but it seems to me that "proselytism" ought  to be regarded as a word to avoid, as the Wikipedia article on proselytism states: "In our day, however, the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative."--John Campbell 10:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement in our article is uncited, and I doubt whether it is accurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does seem to be the whole thrust of the article, though, as it goes on to contrast legitimate evangelization with illicit proselytism. --John Campbell 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proselytism" is accurate when it refers to the negatives of coercion or denying freedom of conscience with respect to religious affiliation.  In current usage, "licit proselytism" is an oxymoron.  The POV problem is conflating any communication intended to attract new adherents to ones belief system as proselytism. patsw 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proselytism v. Evangelism 

message: Just a thought, every word can be POV in some context, We want this list to capture common and important ones, that often seem to surface in controversy. Not to drift into political correctness. For that reason I'm not adding much. Just wanted to draw that view to others attention too,... wikipedia is not majorly rules based, long may it stay that way! FT2 15:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caution: PC ahead

message: I'm extremely unhappy with recent changes to this page that seem to amount to a wholesale rewriting of the page with no clear consensus to do so. I am particularly unhappy with what has happened to the section on the word "terrorism". We had, a few days ago, what seemed a clear description of encyclopedic and unencyclopedic use of the term. That has now been replaced with what a remark that someone else in another, non-Wikipedia context avoided the term. So what? The new wording is vague, and could be read as saying that it is OK for the narrative voice of the article to call a group "terrorist" if it can be cited that someone has called them so, which goes against the long-established convention. I am restoring the previous thrust of that section (removing the non-Wikipedia quotation, restoring Wikipedia-related examples). -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely unhappy with recent changes 

message: The paragraph doesn't state that it shouldn't be used, and it pretends that its only existing use in English is that of scientific theory, making the term "scientific theory" silly. Instead, in common use (and easy to check in dictionaries which should be consulted) it has other meanings too. What's going on here? Harald88 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know ..... I think you're right!  I think it was that way before. But maybe it's soemthing to consider if other editors want to read that section carefully. FT2 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's the matter with "theory"? 

message: There is a section called "Final thoughts" in Faurisson_Affair. IMHO this phrase should be avoided as the purpose of an article is to describe facts, not to express somebody's (whose?) thoughts. Apokrif 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Final_thoughts" 

message: I think this is a bad example, because the "according" and "purportedly" are either redundent, or not so we should have:
According to the Boston Times, the govenor said X.
or
According to the Boston Times, the govenor is purported by pink monkeys to have said X.
Rich   Farmbrough. 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "According to the Boston Times, the govenor is purported to have said X" 

message: Any suggestions on how the West-German RAF should be labelled?
Here are some of the descriptions used by other sources:
*Encyclopedia Britannica:  "radical leftist group" that "engaged in terrorist bombings"
*German Encarta:  "left-wing extremist terrorist group", "saw itself as part of international terrorism"
*http://www.wissen.de:  "terror group"
*Brockhaus:  "left-wing extremist terror group"
*Süddeutsche Zeitung, Aktuelles Lexikon:  "terror group"
I mean, I am sympathetic to the notion that the label "terrorist" should be used with discretion, but I also think that it's unencyclopedic not to call a spade a spade.  Thanks for your input.  Maikel 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick what you find for similar groups like Sendero Luminoso (Peru) or Symbionese Liberation Army (US), don't confuse it with IRA (mainly UK), ETA (mainly Spain), or PLO. Omniplex  05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Red Army Fraction]] Not A Terrorist Group? 

message: From our article on the French Directory: "…but its true man of action was … [[[Paul François Jean Nicolas Barras|Barras]]'s] … agent and henchman, the young General Napoleon Bonaparte." "Henchman" seems pretty value-laden to me. I would hesitate in Wikipedia to use it outside of referring to convicted criminals; I just might use it for someone like Lavrenty Beria, whose chief fame is as the head of a particularly brutal secret police apparatus. Anyway, seems to me like a POV-laden word, but it is not discussed here. Probably should be, and I think its use in French Directory is inappropriate. Other opinions? - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a whole field of language - names for associates. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Linked, associated, affiliated (to/with) covers some of it, but doesn't go into much detail. We don't need a policy to know that a term like "toady" would be inappropriate, for example, because clearly it is a pejorative term.  There are a range of similar terms, like "operative" and "asset" that imply nefarious aims. "Henchmen" is a slightly archaic  reference to an illicit patronage group or conspiracy member. It's a great word, and may make for flashy writing, but this is just a dull encyclopedia so we need to be careful. Subordinate members of a coup plot might be called "henchmen", I think. It seems to have become an accepted term for Haldeman and Erlichmann, which perhaps show that "avoided words" may still be used when justifiably appropriate (they did conspire to committed crimes on Nixon's behalf.) I don't know whether "henchman" is accurate in the case of Napoleon, but it is up to the editor using it to show that he was a subordinate conspirator with Barras. It shouldn't be used as a synonym for a political supporter. Another danger is that it is getting so archaic that readers may think means more than it does.   -Will Beback 11:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henchman 

message: From the current version: "…the political Left of the United States shares views on certain social issues with the political Right of Canada or the Netherlands…" I suppose this is true in a sense, but generally on issues where the Canadian or Dutch Left and Right are in consensus with one another. Are there examples of issues where the U.S. Left agrees with the Canadian or Dutch Right, but differs from the Canadian or Dutch Left? - Jmabel | Talk 03:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that globally, concerning political terms we should avoid, we can refer to :Category:Pejorative political terms. Far-left and far-right are not in this list, and are objective classifications widely used by political scientists and in polls, there is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to "avoid them". The only rule is to be cautious according to each context, and to Cite sources. But a spade must be called a spade, and the majority of political movements and parties are very easy to class according to this classic political spectrum. The few whom refuse the left/right distinction have historically been found in Fascism (which, although it passed by various stages, is generally classed as far right or "revolutionary right" by Zeev Sternhell), also in Gaullism (although all political analysts class it as a right-wing party), Peronism is also an exception (but same goes, it finally became heavily right-wing if not far-right)... At least in European countries, the rest of the parties easily fit this classic scheme. Tazmaniacs 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that while you're correct that most philosophies fit quite snugly into the political spectrum (libertarianism is another that's difficult to pigeonhole), what area on that spectrum is the center varies greatly depending on where you go.  Basically, everyone perceives their own society's center as center.  To an American, the American Democratic Party is moderate left, but is moderate right to most Europeans, and extreme left to a typical Iranian. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. However, the fact that the left/right division line changes a bit according to places (and times) doesn't make it irrelevant, as some Wikipedians would have it (particularly those who'd rather that a page such as the National Front didn't include the term "far right"). These terms are widely used in political sciences, and parties and politicians must be classed. It is ridiculous not to use them in contexts where they are perfectly relevant (say, in the States, liberal & conservatives might be most often used; but in Europe, left & right are commonly used & understood.) Tazmaniacs 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they should always be used as "a group generally considered far-right in France", not just "a far-right group", because there will usually be a pretty large number who disagree with the label's applicability.  When you add up the members and sympathizers of all the similar groups in the world, there are a substantial number of people who wouldn't agree with the classification; if you include people who happen not to be alive anymore, the number becomes quite large.  So since the term has no objective definition, just qualify it appropriately the first time it's used in an article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left/Right 

message: :"Before <event> <this>. However after <event> <that>."
This is preferred? Err I thought this would be preferred:
:"Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."
Or at the very least -- and this isn't really satisfactory -- there should always be a comma after "However" when it starts a sentence:
:"Before <event> <this>. However, after <event>, <that>."
The reason being, "however" has multiple meanings, and putting the "but" meaning at the head of the sentence forces the reader to scan ahead into the sentence to figure out what meaning is intended, e.g.:
:However after seeing the Wikipedia article his head exploded.
:However it happened, his head had clearly exploded.
:However many heads have exploded since, his was the first.
:BAD: However after seeing the Wikipedia article his head exploded.
:A LITTLE BETTER: However, after seeing the Wikipedia article, his head exploded.
:BEST: After seeing the Wikipedia article, however, his head exploded.
Yeah I know lots of people place "however" (in the "but" meaning) at the head of sentences, but that doesn't mean we have to encourage it. So I changed it. Herostratus 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  However 

message: The neologism "islamophobia" is being frequently used pejoratively to inhibit rightful criticism of Islam and critics are wrongfully being labeled "islamophobe" or their views are referred to as "islamophobic". Much like the term "terrorism" this word is highly charged. There is currently a bit of a drive to make this word a standard word for regular utilization on Wikipedia (see this request for mediation and this category for deletion discussion). In my view in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, this word should not be used when writing articles outside of direct quotes and citations of its use. What are the views of others who frequent this talk page? Netscott 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this different from "homophobe?" Tom Harrison Talk 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not. (Unless you realize that criticism of Islam makes rational sense, criticism of homosexuality doesn't; criticizing an ideology and criticizing a sexual orientation are entirely different affairs. Bonobos don't follow religions.) -Silence 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my irony detector is only partly working today:-) Do you mean to say that "Islamophobia" should not be used because criticism of Islam(ism?) is rational, but "homophobia" may be used because criticism of homosexuality is not rational? Tom Harrison Talk 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, neither should be used by Wikipedia. I was merely pointing out a distinction between the two, in response to your question "How is this different from 'homophobe'?" The answer is, both are pejorative value-judgments, and thus should only be reported on Wikipedia as quotations or paraphrases from noteworthy sources (much like the pejorative "terrorist"), but that doesn't make the two terms and their contexts identical. For example, being prejudiced against black people is clearly very different from being prejudiced against communists, regardless of whether they're both Bad Things. Also, I did not mean to say "criticism of Islam(ism) is rational, criticism of homosexuality is irrational": that's clearly an overgeneralization. Some criticism of Islam(ism) is rational. -Silence 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islamophobia", "Islamophobic", "Islamophobe"