# விக்கிப்பீடியா:மழுப்பலான சொற்களை தவிர்த்தல்



மழுப்பலான சொற்கள் என்று இங்கு குறிப்பிடுவன என்னவென்றால், *எங்கு, யார்*, தெளிவாக *என்ன* கூறியுள்ளார்கள், என்ன நிறுவியுள்ளார்கள் என்று திட்டவட்டமாகக் குறிப்பிடாமல், அரையும் குறையுமாய், தனியொருவர் கருத்தை, "ஆய்வாளர்கள் சொல்கிறார்கள்", "நம்பப்படுகின்றது", "சிலர் கூறுகிறார்கள்", "அறிஞர்கள் கருதுகிறார்கள்" என்பது போன்ற மழுப்பலான சொற்களால் கூறுவனவாகும். இவ்வகைக் கூற்றுகளால், கூறிய செய்திகள் (நிறுவப்பட்ட) உண்மை போலும் தோற்றம் அளிக்கவல்லன. சில கூற்றுகளை இத்தகு சொற்களால் கூறும்பொழுது, ஏதோ அது பற்றி பெரிய கருத்துவேறுபாடு இருப்பது போலவும் ஒரு பொய்யான தோற்றம் ஏற்படுத்த வல்லது. இப்படி மழுப்பலான சொற்களால் கூறவந்த செய்தி பொய்யானது என்பது அல்ல கருத்து, அக்கூற்றுகள் பொய்யான தோற்றத்தை ஏற்படுத்துகின்றன.  

## Words that may introduce bias
### Puffery

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 unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.  

- **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, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.  

Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with the or templates.  

### Contentious labels

Value-laden labels&mdash;such as calling an organization a *cult*, an individual a *racist*, *terrorist*, or *freedom fighter*, or a sexual practice a *perversion*&mdash;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 that something is 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. Watergate), 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 undue weight.  

### Unsupported attributions

"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with 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. However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they ***accurately represent the opinions of the source***. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.  

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.  

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the template so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).  

### Expressions of doubt

Words such as *supposed*, *apparent* and *purported* can imply that a given point is inaccurate. *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 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.  

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.  

### Editorializing

The 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 to maintain an . Words such as *fundamentally, essentially*, and *basically* can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with *actually*, which implies a fact is contrary to expectations; make sure this is verifiable and not just assumed. *Clearly, obviously, naturally*, and *of course* all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and are often excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was *fortunate* or not.  

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as *but*, *however*, and *although* may imply a relationship between two statements where exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.  

### Synonyms for said

*Said*, *stated*, *described*, *wrote*, and *according to* are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person *clarified*, *explained*, *exposed*, *found*, *pointed out*, or *revealed* something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone *insisted*, *noted*, *observed*, *speculated*, or *surmised* can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.  

To write that someone *asserted* or *claimed* something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of *admit*, *confess*, and *deny*, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.  

## Expressions that lack precision

### Euphemisms

The word *died* is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as *passed away*. Likewise, *have sex* is neutral; the euphemism *make love* is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use *issue* for *problem* or *dispute*, nor *ethnic cleansing* for *mass murder* or *genocide*; *civilian casualties* should not be masked as *collateral damage*.  

If a person *has* an affliction, or *is* afflicted, say just that; *living with* is a verbose softener. Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume plain language is inappropriate.  

### Clichés and idioms

Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. *Lion's share* is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as *all, most*, or *two-thirds*. The *tip of the iceberg* should be reserved for descriptions of icebergs; the *small portion evident* conveys the substance without *gilding the lily*. People in Wikipedia articles do not *take the plunge*, they simply *do* things. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded. For more examples, Wiktionary includes a lengthy list of English idioms.  

### Relative time references

Prefer specific statements of time to general ones. Do not say, "Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith." Instead say, "A Gallup poll in showed Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since January." When material in an article may become out of date, follow the guideline. Because seasons occur at various times around the world, consider instead using months, quarters, or other more widely applicable terms such as *mid-year* unless the season itself is pertinent (*spring blossoms, autumn harvest*).  

Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" 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 US in the 1930s".  

Several templates exist that may be useful to alert readers to time-sensitive wording issues. For example, the template is available for editors to indicate when a sentence, or part of one, should be worded more precisely. The template may be used when an article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information.  

Information can be written in a less time-dependent way by using the *as of* technique, implemented in the template; it additionally tags information that will become dated. produces the text and categorises the article appropriately. "A new widget is currently being developed" can usefully become something like "a new widget was under development " or, if supported by a source, "it was announced in November 2007 that a new widget was being developed" (no need for template).  

### Unspecified place

Our readers are international, and probably not in the same town or country as you.  

### Neologisms and new compounds
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. Adding *-ism* to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.  

## Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities
and its encompasses the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the original source. But language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.