Jump to content

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[1] 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

A peacock saying "I am the greatest bird ever!"

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.[a] 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 inline}}.

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

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, 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.[b]

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

A weasel saying "Some people say that weasel words are great!"

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.[c]

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

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,[d] may be interpreted as "scare quotes". The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully.

Editorializing

Using descriptors like notable (notably, it should be noted) or interesting (interestingly) 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 policy against original research (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).

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

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, remarked, 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

Euphemisms

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. Problems can be named without spinning them as challenges; disputes should not be smoothed over by saying that people have issues with it.

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. See also MOS:SUICIDE.

Norms vary for expressions about disabilities and disabled people. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.[2] The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice.

Clichés and idioms

Clichés and idioms should generally be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood and a landslide victory is imprecise; 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