Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →Prodigy: new section |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
== Prodigy == |
== Prodigy == |
||
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&diff=861387651&oldid=860064196 this] edit by [[User:Alsee|Alsee]], should "prodigy" be on the [[WP:PEACOCK]] list? After all, "[[child prodigy]]" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a [[genius]] or considered a genius? We note that [[Albert Einstein]] is considered one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted |
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&diff=861387651&oldid=860064196 this] edit by [[User:Alsee|Alsee]], should "prodigy" be on the [[WP:PEACOCK]] list? After all, "[[child prodigy]]" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a [[genius]] or considered a genius? We note that [[Albert Einstein]] is considered to have been one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted like Einstein's genius is, but "prodigy" seems more objective. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:41, 29 September 2018
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
RfC Terms that can introduce bias
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we add a class of "Terms that can introduce bias", listing incorrect use of Arab and Arabic as an examplar?
RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC). Batternut (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording would be:
Batternut (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For comparison, the current wording is
Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting.
For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic coffee and Arabian stallion, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is in both categories.
Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.EEng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Background
- The RfC to remove related material from the main MoS page is archived here.
- Arab and Arabic are listed at Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words#A.
- Previous related discussions are above at § Arab, Arabic, Arabian and § Re-RfCing Arab/Arabic.
Comments on Terms that can introduce bias
- Weak oppose. I hesitate to recommend instruction creep of the MoS into political correctness when the issues are already covered by WP:NPOV, and incorrect use of Arabic etc can be dealt with per WP:FIXIT. Also, it seems to make a special case of Anti-Arabism over all the other -isms listed at List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. Although treating serious social issues, is this just watering down the MoS with anodyne platitudes? Batternut (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support as the compromise reached in the above discussion, which was non-neutrally closed as "non-neutral" by its chief opponent (which I should probably revert), who then opened this new RfC just to oppose it. See WP:ONEHANDGIVES (at item no. 2) and WP:POINT. That said, it actually is a reasonable compromise, so I'll skip over doing anything about the above. "Nominator-opposer" Batternut's rationale for opposition is invalid: This is not "mak[ing] a special case of anti-Arabism", it's a general statement of principle illustrated with an example, which is what this page is for and how it is laid out in other sections. Additional examples could be added as needed, and Batternut even suggested an Irish one in the earlier discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support - I do like the idea behind this... but I have to question whether Arab/Arabic vs Muslim/Islamic is the best example to use. Suggest we discuss other potential examples to see if we can agree on a better one. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support in principle. It is good advice for the ignorant, but whether it will penetrate the clueless is another question. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Heh. None of our P&G do the latter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Soft oppose, seems like unnecessary instruction creep. Do we really need a guideline to say
Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way
? If something is wrong, fix it. The List of commonly misused English words seems sufficient to address the Arab/Arabic case. Alsee (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC) - Oppose in the proposed form of words The examples given seems to have a particular socio-cultural bias. What's with the obsession over people with some connection to the middle east? This looks like a form of bias in itself. If we accept that "Terms that can introduce bias" are a problem, how about addressing a wider set of them? For example, I'm Australian, and in my country the major conservative political party is the Liberal Party, and I do a double take every time I see a (generally American) article use the word liberal to describe something quite different. And we know that word is used as a pejorative by many in the USA. That's just one example. Are we going to create a comprehensive list of such words? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
- Shortcut "MOS:CONFUSE" doesn't seem appropriate for this section. Is it needed, or would a different shortcut be better? Batternut (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me in the interim; very mnemonic for the keyword in the present heading. We don't have some other MoS section desperately vying for it. If we end up using something like "Terms that can introduce bias", then a shortcut like MOS:TERMBIAS might work better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Too tired to opine on the wording change, but I'd like to see more examples in the section (whatever the wording). EEng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Cunard, Batternut, EEng#s: I agree with all points made under subheader "Easily confused terms." Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"Furthermore"
Regarding this, this and this, furthermore isn't quite on the same level as "but, despite, however, though, although." I haven't really seen cases where furthermore "possibly unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." I do consider "furthermore" editorializing" in our articles, but it's not on the same level as the first batch of examples in that section. From what I can tell, it's simply used to carry on the continuation of a thought, without bias, the vast majority of the time. In that vein, it's similar to "additionally." But then again, I usually see "but," "though," and "although" used appropriately as well. The words "despite" and "however," but especially "despite," are more problematic.
DVdm, I take it you added "furthermore" because it's such a common editorializing term? Not because it usually "unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I added it for both reasons, but mainly because it puts a finger in the air and sometimes sounds like I told you something important, and now here's something even more important. It doesn't really matter in which category it is put in the guideline. It is not a forbidden word, but just a word to watch. So I don't care in which category it goes. - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's often just used to break up something, like "Additionally ...", "Moreover ...", but it can often sound pedantic and can just be removed in most cases. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- DVdm and SMcCandlish, yeah, I sometimes get an "I told you something important, and now here's something even more important." vibe from it too. LOL. I never use it in Wikipedia articles, but I do use it when talking to people on Wikipedia. I remove it, or I'm likely to remove it, when I see it in Wikipedia articles. Still, I can't think of a case where it "unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." I sometimes use "additionally" in Wikipedia articles, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- The vibe I object to is that it means the article is building to a conclusion, and Wikipedia shouldn't reach conclusions - it should just provide the evidence. "I've given you one piece of evidence that is probably sufficient to support my conclusion, but if it's not, here's another." Of course, articles often argue in someone else's voice, explaining how someone else reached a certain conclusion, and then I don't mind it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
"Overwhelming"
Carl Tristan Orense, why do you think "overwhelming" should be added to the WP:PEACOCK section? I've seen okay uses of "overwhelming" when supported by a source. And like I stated when reverting you, there are already enough examples. As others have stated on this talk page before, this is not a list. It's not a place to add every word we personally want highlighted. There are a number of other words we can add to that box, but the goal (like the other boxes as well) is to make sure editors/readers get the point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Suicides?
Sorry to raise a depressing topic, but does WP have a guideline or policy regarding the language or vocab that should be used for reporting suicides? E.g. in the biography of Darcy Clay, an editor has just changed "committed suicide" to "took his own life." I don't see anything about this under WP:EUPHEMISM or WP:SUICIDES.--Muzilon (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Although I almost always advocate for the simplest, most widely understood terms, I am OK with using terms such as "died by suicide" or "killed herself" over the commonly used "committed suicide". "Commit" is archaic and comes from the days when suicide was a crime (like committing murder or fraud); I would prefer to avoid the suggestion of wrongdoing. I reckon "Took his own life", meanwhile, is a euphemism, or at best needlessly indirect - not good writing for an encyclopaedia. Popcornduff (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- A common misapprehension. The phrase comes from irrevocable deciding to do something; "to commit to a course of action". A "committed Christian" isn't normally a convicted criminal for example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Source? The Guardian Style Guide advises against the phrase for the reason I gave (and regardless of the etymology it has connotations of wrongdoing). In modern parlance "commit suicide" certainly doesn't sound like "committing to suicide" - for one thing the syntax is wrong. Popcornduff (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- A common misapprehension. The phrase comes from irrevocable deciding to do something; "to commit to a course of action". A "committed Christian" isn't normally a convicted criminal for example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- We have had this discussion within the past year. Please check the archives here as well as at the main MOS page, and/or VPPRO/VPPOL. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yep. This is total rehash. There was no consensus to avoid "commit", despite language-change activism against the word. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, having searched the archives, I found the following discussions:
- Stigmatizing language regarding suicide (VPPOL, 2018)
- Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (MOS, 2016).--Muzilon (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, so no consensus against "committed" and none against "died by" either. I prefer the latter, but did not "win" on that matter, but that's how it goes. We need not re-re-re-argue the same stuff again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, having searched the archives, I found the following discussions:
- Yep. This is total rehash. There was no consensus to avoid "commit", despite language-change activism against the word. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Peacock?
In Drake (musician)'s lead section:
He is one of the most popular entertainers in the world,[1][2] and one of the best-selling music artists of the 21st century. Drake's contributions to music have made him a global figure in popular culture for over a decade.[3][4]
None of the sources cited state that, while the one that does is an unreliable website (uncharteddomain dot com). While discussing the topic I believe is WP:Peacock from the user that added it. The other sources, however, did note that he is 2018's top artist commercially in the United States. How could it be rewritten if it is indeed wp:peacock? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if sources support it, we are allowed to note that a person is one of the most popular entertainers in the world, one of the best-selling music artists of the 21st century, and a global figure in popular culture for over a decade. But, per WP:Peacock, it's good to note why he is one of the most popular entertainers in the world. The lead is for summarizing, but there is surely a way to briefly note why (he's one of the most popular entertainers in the world) in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Reborn: Sources don't say that exactly, Usa Today and Business Insider mention him as the top selling artist of 2018, but never mention "one of the best selling artists of the 21st century". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Even if a source did say that, I don't think it is objective and factual enough to repeat in an encyclopedia. It would just be a source using peacock terms. Being 2018's top artist commercially, on the other hand, is a plain enough fact for a Wikipedia article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
___
References
- ^ "Drake is 2018's biggest artist". USA Today. Retrieved August 4, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "The 10 most popular music artists of 2018, according to Nielsen". Business Insider. Retrieved August 4, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "What Makes Drake So Popular?". Uncharted Domain. Retrieved February 21, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - ^ "How Drake became the all-pervading master of hyper-reality rap". The Guardian. Retrieved August 9, 2018.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
#Editorialising
To a user who edits in British English- it seems amusing to see a heading spelled Editoriali(z)ing under words to avoid! ClemRutter (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- As one Brit to another: why? Popcornduff (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Project space is an ecumenical zone where all spelling and usage faiths are welcomed into the communion, even to the extent of mixed marriages i.e. multiple modes on the same page. EEng 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Does that apply to humour on the Talk page? --ClemRutter (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and to humor as well. EEng 15:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ClemRutter:, have you read Oxford spelling? Doug Weller talk 18:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, and to humor as well. EEng 15:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Does that apply to humour on the Talk page? --ClemRutter (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Project space is an ecumenical zone where all spelling and usage faiths are welcomed into the communion, even to the extent of mixed marriages i.e. multiple modes on the same page. EEng 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Weasel forever?
You don't think weasel words should be removed instead of just tagged and left there? EatenRiper (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
demonologists?
In a sentence like "Annabelle is a Raggedy Ann doll said by demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren to be haunted" we can't put scare quotes around demonologists, or say "self-described" or anything, we just have to pretend like that's a real thing? EatenRiper (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- EatenRiper, well, this is one case where I can't object to "alleged." But, sure, go with "said." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, and that article is on my watchlist, by the way, since I've seen that it is a contested topic and is sometimes subject to vandalism. At times, I'm tempted to remove it from watchlist because I have more important articles to worry about and don't want an extra distraction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- When claims are extraordinary, like “a doll can move, speak, and harm people” I don’t see any problem with using the word “claim”. In fact it is sometimes the most appropriate term. I don’t think we have a hard and fast rule that would force us to write “Alex Jones *said* John Podesta molested children at a pizza shop”. Also note that sources at our Ed and Lorraine Warren article describe them as self professed or self-taught demonologists, presumably to distinguish their status from religious orders that use such titles. So again, nothing wrong with using appropriate qualifiers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:Alleged is clear that WP:BLP is one concern. When it's an allegation with regard to a BLP issue, we should be clear that it's an allegation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- When claims are extraordinary, like “a doll can move, speak, and harm people” I don’t see any problem with using the word “claim”. In fact it is sometimes the most appropriate term. I don’t think we have a hard and fast rule that would force us to write “Alex Jones *said* John Podesta molested children at a pizza shop”. Also note that sources at our Ed and Lorraine Warren article describe them as self professed or self-taught demonologists, presumably to distinguish their status from religious orders that use such titles. So again, nothing wrong with using appropriate qualifiers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Prodigy
Regarding this edit by Alsee, should "prodigy" be on the WP:PEACOCK list? After all, "child prodigy" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a genius or considered a genius? We note that Albert Einstein is considered to have been one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted like Einstein's genius is, but "prodigy" seems more objective. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)