Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

message: I am just wondering why the word terrorist is OK for Al-Qaeda, but not for IRA Irish Republican Army or ETA. I find the enforcement of this policy very biased on WikipediaKarljoos (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: I asked Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Attribution.22 if the phrasing "The use of one of these words [controversy scandal or -gate] in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it." meant textual attribution within the article (example "..use of public funds was called scandalous by Senator X" [footnote]) or merely applying a footnote to a reliable source that uses the term (example: "..use of public funds was scandalous"[footnote to a source that uses the term "scandalous"]). 
The feedback that I got was that, particularly for WP:BLPs, that attribution should be within the text of the article. If that is the case, would it be possible to reword the guideline to be more specific? MM207.69.139.147 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy_and_scandal]] 

message: Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch so it's in one place. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal has been accepted. Within a few hours, this page will be redirected to the new Manual of Style guideline Wikipedia:Words to watch.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It does not need a central discussion. Each merge can be looked at on its merits. Further the RfC has not been open for anything like a month, so it is not at all clear there is a consensus for the merge. Also when I tried to put in the wording that is currently on this page in replace of a new synthesis you reverted it. So please explain how it is a merge if the text is changing? -- PBS (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A merge doesn't mean material will be transferred word for word. The main aim was to make the writing tighter, so obviously not everything can be moved over; there would have been little point in the merge otherwise. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you for article space. But when merging two guidelines why should it not be done that way as it will certainly cut down on misunderstandings -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: For the merge yes but changes to the wording of this article should be discussed here. -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock the !Vote! 

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS naming style 

message: The part on -ist and -ism has this:
The term evolutionism is an excellent example of the loaded use of the -ism suffix, but it's semantically problematic to characterize this as "treating fact as doctrine" because that uses the word doctrine imprecisely. The theory of evolution is rigorously proven beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, but in the sense that it forms part of the body of scientific teaching, it is scientific doctrine. Doctrine does often have connotations of faith-based religious or philosophical belief, but its basic sense just means "a body of teachings". The theory of evolution, and, indeed, any scientific theory, falls within this broader definition of the term.
For that reason alone, the example would deserve rewording, but it has an even bigger problem: science itself is philosophically doctrinal. Its principle dogma is that by the skeptically rigorous analysis of empirical evidence collected under controlled conditions, truth―or at least an increasingly accurate approximation thereof―may be induced. That is an epistemology. The theory of evolution is a truth induced through the application of the scientific method, and when scientists regard evolution as fact, they do so because they believe in the epistemological doctrine of science.
The more I think about it, the less sense this usage of the word doctrine makes in the first place. What would the suggestion that the theory of evolution is a matter of doctrine even mean?
:Creationists like to describe evolution in ways that make it out to be just as much a matter of faith as any religion. That is the sense of "doctrine" meant here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  But the theory of evolution IS doctrine!