SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
Undid revision 960514833 by SMcCandlish (talk) violates WP:APPNOTE. make your comments/proposal in a new section Tag: Undo |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
A move discussion is taking place that may be of interest to watchers of this page at [[Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020]]. I note that this term has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=reportedly&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AManual+of+Style%2FWords+to+watch%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns10=1 been discussed here in the past]. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 10:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
A move discussion is taking place that may be of interest to watchers of this page at [[Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020]]. I note that this term has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=reportedly&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AManual+of+Style%2FWords+to+watch%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns10=1 been discussed here in the past]. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 10:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Of perhaps more interest to MoS-watchers, this discussion is relying on [[MOS:ALLEGED]] to suggest that WP cannot cast doubt on [[WP:FRINGE]] topics with terms like "reportedly" or "purportedly", and that is obviously not the intent of this guideline. We should probably clarify that the terms covered in that section can be (not "are") problematic when they cast doubt in case in which Wikipedia doesn't actually intend to (and we always intend to for fringe topics, often outright labeling them fringe or pseudoscience, conspiracy theory or folklore). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 11:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:51, 3 June 2020
![]() | Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Text has been copied from: |
- See also related discussions and archives:
- Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words
- Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms
- Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms
- Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid
WP:WEASEL and "Loby groups"
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Sidelobes_en.svg/220px-Sidelobes_en.svg.png)
I am seeking guidance as to the Wikipedia policy for referring to interest groups/lobby groups/pressure groups/activist organizations/think tanks/ independent policy advisory bodies/ policy institutes/ policy forums etc.
There are a dizzying number of ways these groups self-identify, and typically a clear conflict with how opponents and other groups would classify them. Some are synonymous, while others refer to structural distinctions, some are euphemisms, some labels are hotly contested while others exist in the context of limited independent coverage.
Do we adopt:
- Their oficial self-identification
- labels given by other official sources eg. government agencies
- The most widely used label they are known by
- The label with the best supporting sources
- A mainstream dictionary definition
- A neutral term- and if so how do we agree and source such a term.
- Another system of referring to interest groups
Any Links to relevant WP are appreciated --Willthewanderer (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I assume we are talking about lobbying groups? If so, we should usually use the label most commonly used by high quality sources. Not all of the examples you listed are necessarily lobbying groups, although they often can be. For example, a group that only does public education is not necessarily a lobbying group, but they may be if they have legislative intent. - MrX 🖋 15:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is basically the same case as "fringe science", "conspiracy theory", "neo-Nazi", etc. WP should follow the preponderance of the sources in how they refer to the subject. Note that means independent sources, not socio-political enemies of the subject. E.g., if the Southern Poverty Law Center or Simon Wiesenthal Center says some group is a racist thinktank producing fringe studies, they are not a reliable source for such a claim in WP's voice. If the media rely on nothing but such socio-political enemies for such claims, our hands may be tied into saying something like "XYZ Group terms itself a 'neutral policy advisory forum',[1] while its detractors claim it has a far-right agenda; the Simon Wiesenthal Center calls XYZ a 'a racist anti-immigration lobby',[2], and the Southern Poverty Law Center termed it a 'special-interest group devoted to the maintenance of white privilege'.[3]" — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Corroborated
I would like to add "corroborated" to the yellow box under WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Synonyms for said. Here is one example of the word being misused to convey an idea not found in the source (corroboration of sexual assualt vs. corroboration that someone told someone else that they were sexually assaulted).[1] Based on talk page discussions, I suspect that some editors don't understand the meaning of the word, or are simply trying to editorialize by using a more powerful version of "said". The example above is but one of several examples where I've seen the word misused editorially. - MrX 🖋 15:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- MrX is pointing to an edit by a person who added "Corroborating statements" in a "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" article. MrX started an RfC on the talk page of the article, where people are arguing whether to use the word. I do not know whether MrX has informed the person who made the edit, and the participants in the talk page discussions, about this WP:WTW proposal. As for the meaning: if it has been used multiple times where "said" would have sufficed, then it has been misused, but shouldn't MrX have demonstrated that before adding "corroborate" to WP:WTW? I reverted the addition and suggest now that we should wait for the RfC result. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: This is not an RfC, and the discussion on the article talk page really has no bearing on the MOS. I've given a clear example of how the word can be misused as a weasel word. Can you articulate a policy based reason for objecting to adding this particular word to the guideline? - MrX 🖋 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- How is corroborate a synonym for said? A definition for corroborate is "confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)." Synonyms given for it are "confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify; support, back up, back, uphold, stand by, bear out, bear witness to, attest to, testify to, vouch for, give credence to, substantiate, sustain, bolster, reinforce, lend weight to." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: You have identified an issue with the heading in the MOS, but that section is evidently for words that are similar to say/said. For example: expose, find, note, observe, insist, assert, etc. My assertion is that corroborate is sometimes misused and that it categorically fits best under that heading. I hope that makes sense. - MrX 🖋 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Use of expose and find aside, use of note, observe, insist, and assert are easily synonyms for said. Corroborate is not, per my initial post in this section. I don't think it belongs in that section. And even in the case of find, it's common for it to essentially equate to relay. For example, scientists relaying something. Insist is there because stating that someone insisted something can sound and/or be non-neutral. Simply stating that they said [so and so] suffices. Observed is sometimes used in place of said as well, but it comes across as a statement of fact. So we use stated or said instead. But substituting said for corroborate? No. If someone's statement supports another, I see no issue with making that clear, whether we opt to use the word support or something else instead of corroborate.
- @Flyer22 Frozen: You have identified an issue with the heading in the MOS, but that section is evidently for words that are similar to say/said. For example: expose, find, note, observe, insist, assert, etc. My assertion is that corroborate is sometimes misused and that it categorically fits best under that heading. I hope that makes sense. - MrX 🖋 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- How is corroborate a synonym for said? A definition for corroborate is "confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)." Synonyms given for it are "confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify; support, back up, back, uphold, stand by, bear out, bear witness to, attest to, testify to, vouch for, give credence to, substantiate, sustain, bolster, reinforce, lend weight to." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: This is not an RfC, and the discussion on the article talk page really has no bearing on the MOS. I've given a clear example of how the word can be misused as a weasel word. Can you articulate a policy based reason for objecting to adding this particular word to the guideline? - MrX 🖋 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this page since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. Let me try to understand. You consider "observed" to be synonymous with said, but not "corroborated". I dumbfounded about why you don't see how "corroborated" fits snugly into the explanatory text already in the MOS:
"To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable."
The purpose of this section of the MOS is not to identify forbidden words, but to prevent editorializing. - MrX 🖋 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)- My point is that most of the words currently used there are used in cases where stated or said (or even relayed) suffice. Yes, a lot of editors and sources have used observed in a way that can easily be substituted for, or means, said. I don't see corroborate fitting snugly there because it is not used as a synonym for said. Unlike assert, it's not at all a synonym for said. And anyone using it like that is using it wrongly. I object to telling editors, "Hey? See the word corroborate in a sentence? Replace that with said." Also, I fail to see why corroborate should generally be avoided. And if one doesn't like the word, just add support in its place. I offered my opinion. Others may have different opinions. You can wait and see if anyone agrees with you to add corroborate. And as for editorializing, we already have a WP:Editorializing section. WP:Said is not it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- We have different reasons but appear to agree that MrX's insertion wasn't justifiable. So, unless others appear and support it, I think we can conclude there was no consensus for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- My point is that most of the words currently used there are used in cases where stated or said (or even relayed) suffice. Yes, a lot of editors and sources have used observed in a way that can easily be substituted for, or means, said. I don't see corroborate fitting snugly there because it is not used as a synonym for said. Unlike assert, it's not at all a synonym for said. And anyone using it like that is using it wrongly. I object to telling editors, "Hey? See the word corroborate in a sentence? Replace that with said." Also, I fail to see why corroborate should generally be avoided. And if one doesn't like the word, just add support in its place. I offered my opinion. Others may have different opinions. You can wait and see if anyone agrees with you to add corroborate. And as for editorializing, we already have a WP:Editorializing section. WP:Said is not it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm. Let me try to understand. You consider "observed" to be synonymous with said, but not "corroborated". I dumbfounded about why you don't see how "corroborated" fits snugly into the explanatory text already in the MOS:
- On a side note: I prefer not to be pinged to this page since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would chime in that a) misuse of "corroborate" isn't common enough on WP to necessitate a mention here (MoS should only contain things that come up frequently, or used to come up frequently until MoS addressed them); and b) even if we were to interpret the section in question more broadly, all that would do is vastly increase the number of words that could potentially be listed there (but without giving us any reason to turn that section into a longer list), so "corroborate" would be less rather than more likely to make the cut, due to the infrequency with which it's a WP-problem compared to other words. The general purpose of the section remains, and the reasoning in it is perfectly fine to apply to similar cases, including any in which "corroborate" (which has various implications) is being misused as a stand-in for "said", "wrote", etc. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Label
Hey all, continuing on from an earlier discussion, I'd like to reconsider a proposed rewording to WP:LABEL. The problem with the current language as I see it is that it is constantly used to exclude any possibility of unattributed labels in the lede. It seems crazy that we can have dozens of sources that "Joe Doe is X", but on Wikipedia we have to phrase it "according to the NYT, Joe Doe is X". NickCT (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Current | Proposed |
---|---|
Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or 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. | Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless the label is both widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject and the label is not refuted by other reliable sources. Even in cases where labels may be appropriate, they should be avoided in the lead unless explored in depth in the main text of the article. |
- Your version doesn't mention anything about in-text attribution. And use of "and are best avoided" isn't the same as "and should be avoided." So, without "in which case use in-text attribution", we'd get editors debating inclusion in an unhelpful way. Also, "not refuted by other reliable sources" is a WP:Due weight matter. If the label is widely used by reliable sources...with only a few reliable sources refuting it, we give most of our weight to the "widely used" aspect. But there is also the WP:BLP matter to consider. To repeat what I stated in the previous discussion: "[...] WP:INTEXT can be misleading when in-text attribution is used for something that should simply be stated in Wikipedia's voice because it's a consensus matter in the literature. But these days, I have seen a number of editors trying to take the 'widely used' aspect of WP:LABEL to mean that Wikipedia should also definitely call someone or something a contentious name in its own voice, including when it's only or mainly opinion pieces calling that someone or something that contentious name. And it's despite the fact that the WP:LABEL says 'in which case use in-text attribution.' The 'in which case use in-text attribution' aspect has helped somewhat in these cases, however." I noted that I have additionally "seen editors use it loosely, to, for example, state 'are considered by feminists [to be so and so]' rather than attribute the matter to just one person or a few people. And that helps the concern I have about misusing WP:INTEXT. But it's certainly still being misused to attribute a widely accepted matter to just one person or a few people." I stand by what I stated then. Despite its misuse, editors also use WP:LABEL with common sense; we do add material involving a contentious label without something like "according to the NYT, Joe Doe is X." Use of "are considered by feminists [to be so and so]" is one example. I'm not sure how best to reword the guideline to address those who may take "in which case use in-text attribution" to mean that we can't state something like "is widely considered to be [so and so]" without "according to", but I don't think your proposal would help. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would also disagree with a "not refuted" condition, but excluding both types of misuse of INTEXT is definitely necessary. I would argue for a relatively minimal type of edit, adding a general statement to the end of the existing text, maybe something like: "Such terms should only be used without attribution if it is warranted by the weight of the reliable sources." That would make it clear that using wikivoice is sometimes a possibility, but implies that there is a presumption against it, and also avoids committing to a specific threshold in order to leave room for judgement. If a stronger statement would be better, an alternative might be: "Such terms should only be used without attribution if it
is warranted byreflects theweightconsensus of the reliable sources." Would you agree with either of those options? Also, I think that in both cases it should be clear that the analysis considers opinion pieces to be generally irrelevant, but a specific comment to that effect could be added as well. Sunrise (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would also disagree with a "not refuted" condition, but excluding both types of misuse of INTEXT is definitely necessary. I would argue for a relatively minimal type of edit, adding a general statement to the end of the existing text, maybe something like: "Such terms should only be used without attribution if it is warranted by the weight of the reliable sources." That would make it clear that using wikivoice is sometimes a possibility, but implies that there is a presumption against it, and also avoids committing to a specific threshold in order to leave room for judgement. If a stronger statement would be better, an alternative might be: "Such terms should only be used without attribution if it
- There's an about-to-be-archived BLP thread Applying controversial labels to people which, as I interpret it, favours being stricter with labels. And the previous discussion, as I interpret it, included editors who don't favour being less strict. So a lack of enthusiasm for laxity is already established. How about going the other way, and changing "are best avoided" to "should be avoided"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems to me that someone needs to propose some wording that makes it clear that stating something like "widely considered" can be okay/can be in-text attribution. SlimVirgin is another who was clear about it being okay in the previous discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Only avoid them when it's neutral
Many people (weasel words) have argued WP:CLAIM with me, saying that when the claims are disproved, it's perfectly fine to use words-to-watch. I am curious, when the claims are disproved how? By one WP:RS against others? By a preponderance of WP:RS? By a consensus or unanimity? What if we can't put the disproval in Wikipedia's voice but have to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, can we still use "claim" and "deny" for that which has been "disproved"? Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities
A Request for Comments has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education asking the following question: How should the ledes of articles about colleges and universities describe the general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution? Your participation and input would be greatly appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
"Worldwide" as an "expression that lacks precision"
I've noticed over the years the term "worldwide" tends to be used vaguely and without robust support, usually to refer to an imprecise concept of something being not limited to one part of the world. Furthermore, in my experience, cultural events that are said to be "worldwide" (e.g. the hippie movement or Bob Marley record sales) often turn out in reality to be predominantly confined to certain cultural spheres (anglophone countries, "developed" countries, the Western world, unevenly-distributed diaspora communities, etc.). Unless used in a scientific context to denote that something is truly spread reasonably evenly throughout the world, this seems like a clear example of an "expression that lacks precision", and the subcategory that most closely fits it would be "Unspecified places or events". Could we add this term to the project page? GeoEvan (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that "worldwide" is fine.
It's similar to "globally."It's like the synonym "globally." I can't see anything wrong with using these terms or that they should be added to the guideline. These are terms that we need to use at times, and they are often supported by reliable sources. So I wouldn't want to discourage their use. If editors aremissingusing "worldwide" to, for example, mean "United States", that's just poor writing. A clear misuse of the term. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- If "Western world" or "Western countries" (etc.) should be used instead, use that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me as long as the spread is wide. Something big in Brazil, Germany and Japan is wide enough, something big in Austria, Hungary and Switzerland, not so much. If you're talking "sliced bread big", go with "universal", "ubiquitous" or "ultracommon". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
A move discussion is taking place that may be of interest to watchers of this page at Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020. I note that this term has been discussed here in the past. -- Netoholic @ 10:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)