Wikipedia:Words to avoid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
As part of the Manual of Style, this page is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
- WP:AVOID redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
There is probably not a word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article. However, there is always an appropriate word and an inappropriate word, and, depending on the article, some words may mark tendentious or unclear presentation. Such words can, if misused, convey different meanings than intended. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, may be unintentionally pejorative, or may simply be the products of bad style (e.g. clichés).
[edit] Sorts of terms to avoid
In general, words and expressions should be avoided if they:
- Are ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific. See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
- Are derogatory or offensive.
- Imply that Wikipedia shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.
- Are condescending toward (that is, "spoonfeed") the reader.
- Contain unnecessary jargon (except for technical terminology when appropriate to the subject).
- Are unnecessarily flattering or positive. See also Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.
- Are clichéd.
Choose specific nouns and verbs instead of stacking trite words with adjectives and adverbs (in today's hyped world, understatement usually has more impact than overstatement). All terms can find a place on Wikipedia, given they are used correctly, accurately and sparingly.
[edit] Words that may advance a point of view
[edit] Claim and other synonyms for say
Editors sometimes create bias, intentionally or unintentionally, by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say". Standard journalistic words for "to say" are "said," and "stated." Words like "reported", on the other hand, imply authority. "Cited" is reserved for when someone cites or quotes another. "Argued" is neutral and useful to paraphrase how someone has promoted a view or idea.
[edit] Claim
By itself, the word "claim" does not carry POV. However, it has a high potential for abuse because it can often suggest or imply that a speaker is not being truthful. In general, it is best to avoid using "claim" to describe a statement from a person about their own mindset. Since it is impossible to get inside the person's head and know what he or she is thinking, and therefore it is impossible to prove or disprove such a statement, editors may resort to using "claim" as a way to encourage readers to doubt the speaker's sincerity. In general, do not juxtapose a statement of objective fact with a person's subjective "claim" regarding that fact.
Dubious use:
- Politician Smith, while he was in college, signed up for a mailing list to receive weekly pamphlets from a socialist organization. Smith claimed in a statement to the press that he is not and never has been a socialist. [A fact followed by a "claim" leaves readers inclined to believe the fact and disbelieve the claim.]
- Politician Jones has come under fire for his use of racial slurs in a prior career. Jones later issued a statement in which he claimed that he is not a racist. [Come on, the guy's obviously a racist!]
Similarly, do not use "claim" merely as shorthand to communicate that someone's belief or statement is incorrect. If it is incorrect as a matter of fact, be clear about that. If it is ambiguous, be clear about that, too.
Dubious use:
- Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them. [Obviously they're generally incorrect, but better to say that explicitly. Try believe.]
- Politician Roberts claimed that American women did not have voting rights until 1970. [He's wrong, so say so, don't just try to imply it.]
"Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit.
Acceptable use :
- Scholar Smith claims that absolute truth cannot exist. Philosopher Peters claims that it must exist in order for the universe to function.
- The only two eyewitnesses disagree about a key element of the crime. Witness Wendy claims that a tall, thin man with dark hair drove the getaway car. Witness Walter claims that the driver was short, pudgy, and blond.
Other definitions of claim, particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable.
Acceptable use:
According to Microsoft's claim, Apple inflicted $2 million worth of damages on it by infringing its patents. [Because we're discussing a legal claim, this terminology is not only acceptable but possibly required, since any other term would not be standard jargon and therefore might be imprecise.]
[edit] Point out, note, observe
These words are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments. Sometimes these words are used to give unproven, unprovable, or subjective statements a gloss of authority:
- Critics of contingent fees point out that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients.
At other times, they are used to introduce statements that may indeed be factual, but which opponents may not consider important or relevant:
- Opponents note that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police.
Observe (as in "Critics observe...") is also sometimes used to the same effect.
[edit] Reveal, expose
In the same way, verbs like reveal and expose should be used carefully, since they imply that what is reported is both true and previously unknown or hidden.
[edit] Report
Likewise, the verb report can bestow a sense of impartiality or objectivity on an unreliable source, such as a political action committee or a government press agency or a spoof news source, that may be inappropriate:
- The Korean Central News Agency reported that North Korea had launched its first satellite into orbit.
Can be changed to:
- The Korean Central News Agency announced/said/stated that North Korea had launched its first satellite into orbit.
- An article in The Enquirer reported that the President met with space aliens to discuss the surrender of Earth.
This can be changed to:
- An article in The Enquirer said/stated/indicated that the President met with space aliens to discuss the surrender of Earth.
[edit] Insist, maintain, protest
These words often make the party appear defensive:
- Salafis insist that Salafism is not a purely Arabian movement, and regard some clerics and scholars outside Arabia as proto-Salafis or Salafi-influenced.
[edit] Feel
This can be appropriate for subjective experiences, but it is inappropriate for objective observations, and it can be used to make the subject seem irrational:
- "Critics who feel it is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational."
[edit] Alternatives and suggestions [best practice]
As a rule, when a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the word say or state:
- Critics of contingent fees say that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients.
When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead:
- Opponents argue that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police.
Although editors sometimes use these and similar words to intentionally influence the sympathies of the reader, in many cases they may simply be the result of well-intentioned editors looking for a way to avoid using the word said, which they may perceive as dull or overused. Beginning writers are often taught to realize that said or stated are nearly "invisible": you may think you're overusing it, but readers probably won't even notice it. They will notice, however, if you try to correct the "problem" by inflicting more colorful synonyms on them. If you absolutely must avoid "said," look for creative ways to rephrase the sentence:
- According to Mayor Bimbsly, it's simply a matter of faith.
- The official reason appeared in a later press release [CITE SOURCE]: "There will not be a trial [...] due to poor response from Asia."
[edit] It should be noted, it is important to note/know, a common error is
This attempts to highlight one particular fact as especially important and is rarely followed with a citation. Rather than claiming that "It should be noted that x", simply state x.
- It should be noted that the act of waterboarding and dunking are not the same thing.
This could be explained better by describing the technique of waterboarding and leaving this sentence out altogether.
- It should be noted that the Vatican claims that the doctrine of indulgences itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, which they claim is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this association.
Better to state the claim of the Vatican with a citation where relevant. Here, "It should be noted" gives the statement the air of a rebuttal.
- It is important to know that MSN Messenger is the most popular instant messaging program in Europe, though.
(in an article about for example AIM)
"It is important to know" is a subjective statement. While you may find it an important note, others may not. In this case, simply say "MSN Messenger is the most popular instant messaging program in Europe."
- Many people think that dolphins are fish, however, this is not true. They are mammals.
While this may be true, it is irrelevant what "many people" think. Just state the fact: "Dolphins are mammals."
[edit] So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported
These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable — at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.
So-called (like "scare quotes", to which similar principles apply) can suggest that a term is invalid. Both the AHD[1] and Webster's[2] give the term two definitions, one indicating that a normal name follows and one indicating that an incorrect name follows. It can be difficult to tell the usages apart; in general, the term may be used for introducing terminology likely to be unfamiliar to the reader (although italics may be preferable), but never for characterizing any specific application of an already-known term.
Supposed and supposedly, like claim, serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion. Saying something is "supposedly true" makes it seem as though the author believes it uncertain. On the other hand, supposed can sometimes denote intent, permission, or prohibition. In such cases the term will often be neutral, but probably too informal for Wikipedia.
Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.
Dubious use:
- The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". Whether this is true is debatable, but due to self-identity and the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines, "pro-life" is the most neutral term and needs no qualification]
- Those who live in the vicinity of Chernobyl supposedly suffer from elevated disease rates. [Remove supposedly and prepend the sentence with something like "According to all independent investigations of the matter . . .".]
- Feather wool is a type of knitting yarn or cotton that is supposed to resemble wool. [Neutral, but informal. Replace with intended or designed.]
- The district's congressman purportedly exclaimed, "The Constitution is just a piece of paper." [Cite a source instead of using purportedly.]
Acceptable use:
- Protons are not in fact elementary, but are rather composed of smaller particles, so-called quarks. [This introduces a new term, and so is probably okay. Consider italicizing quarks instead.]
- O.J. Simpson allegedly murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994. [In the context of crimes, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by government prosecutors".]
[edit] However, although, whereas, despite
These words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change.
Dubious use implying preference:
- "Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others think he is a misunderstood freedom fighter."
- "Homeopathy says that dilute solutions can be therapeutic, although science says this is incorrect."
- "Various paranormal theories are widely accepted, although these all violate Occam's Razor."
- "Some people remain convinced that the Scientology Church is a cult, despite others saying that it isn't."
- In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." can suggest that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."
Acceptable use:
- "Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."
[edit] Of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, actually
These words can imply that something is without doubt, or considered so obvious there is no need to explain, cite a source, or support it. In the sense of "wouldn't you just know it", these words are simple rhetoric, and imply a viewpoint.
Even if the matter is commonly accepted, these words are often unencyclopaedic and can be perceived as condescending- but do state the obvious when it may result in a better article.
Occasionally "of course" or "clearly" can be useful in a step of an explanation if it is really easy to understand, yet, for clarity, useful not to skip. In such a case it keeps the reader from wondering whether the step is as simple as it looks or if there is something behind it. But often, if some readers may not know or understand it, don't make them feel uncomfortable using these terms; it is as if you are saying that they are stupid.
Dubious use:
- "Clinton, naturally, was not impeached."
- "Clearly we all know this to be false."
- "Heinrich Himmler, who was obviously going to be found guilty, was sentenced."
- "Naturally, Protestant critics have jumped on this bandwagon."
- "The point of Brahms's work has, of course, been lost by critics."
The use of "naturally" to mean "in a natural manner", or to indicate an artificial but convenient conceptualization, is often not a problem.
Acceptable use:
- "Plutonium may occur naturally."
- "Cultural anthropologists assert that human beings are naturally social."
[edit] Special considerations for naturally
In certain areas, especially mathematics, the words "natural" or "naturally" have precise technical meanings. For example, one might say that two objects are "naturally isomorphic". This has nothing to do with "words to avoid".
Additionally in mathematics, natural and naturally are used to indicate a criterion of intuitive quality that a particular definition or theorem possesses, a criterion that is widely considered to be an important way of judging mathematics (cf. Lakatos, MacLane, Rota, Maddy). Attributions of naturality in this sense are at risk of promoting a point of view, but may equally be perfectly uncontroversial statements of mathematical consensus; discretion is the key here, but a danger sign is if a claim is made supported only by an appeal to naturality, and without reference to an external, published authority.
[edit] Fundamentally, at heart, essentially, basically
Expressions such as "This is fundamentally about X" imply a preferred viewpoint for categorizing things. It ignores the fact that we create all categories and can do with them as we please. People who prefer different category schemes (i.e. any two people) may disagree about the "fundamental nature" of X, and unless they share some arbitrary set of definitions they can never settle the question.
Dubious use:
- "9/11 was fundamentally a battle between Christianity and Islam"
- "Jesus was at heart a millennial type of leader"
- "<politician> was essentially a dictator"
- "This statement is basically factual"
Acceptable use:
- "Schrödinger's Equation is considered fundamental to quantum physics" (it underpins a subject)
- "Concerns about the difficulty of invading Japan were fundamental to the decision to drop the A-bomb" (underpins a decision)
[edit] Ironically, amusingly, unfortunately, interestingly, etc [Words which editorialize]
Adverbs such as ironically, amusingly, (un)fortunately, and interestingly (as well as their adjectival forms) express an editorial opinion: the editor has found something to be ironic, or amusing, or interesting, etc. Others may not share this opinion, so use words like these with caution. If amusingly is used, for example, who is amused? If the reader is supposed to find it amusing, he or she will not need to be told that it is amusing. Similarly, if ironically is used, who found it ironic and why?
It may be appropriate to use unfortunately with additional modifiers: "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" expresses an opinion, while "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be more neutral. Avoiding the adverb altogether and just stating the fact may be even better: "Smith could not attend."
Similarly, it may be appropriate to use ironic in a context such as "Alabama 3 made ironic use of a sample of a Jim Jones speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent is that of the artist whose work is being written about.
An adverb such as significantly makes an authoritative claim which should be supported with the proper citations. "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote" is an unsupported claim; "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote" is supported. If you do not have such a citation, leave off the adverb and just state the objective fact: "Johnson did not cast a vote."
As ever, Wikipedia does not normally have a view whether a matter is "amusing" or "ironic" or "interesting". If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so (and cite your source) to show that you're not using adverbs to express your personal observations in the article.
[edit] Sadly, tragically, and other words that editorialize death
When writing about death, avoid phrases such as "died tragically", "untimely death", "unfortunate loss", "he died doing what he loved", "his death ends a chapter...", and "his death was the end of an era" (this last might occasionally be legitimate). Everyone's death is sad or tragic to those who love and admire them; few deaths seem "timely". If you want to show that a death is tragic or sad, provide relevant facts cited from reliable sources and let the reader decide.
Editors should also avoid editorializing when describing causes of death. Often deaths described as "horrible" are those that appear disturbing to onlookers but which may have been nearly painless to the deceased. Is a sudden crushing death really more horrible for the sufferer than a seven-year struggle with cancer? Again, describe what happened, cite sources, and let the reader decide.
Euphemisms for death such as "passed away", "passed over", and "returned to God" should also be avoided. "Died" is neither crude nor vulgar; more importantly, it does not make an unsupported prediction about any future state.
[edit] Scandal, controversy, affair
In current affairs, a controversial episode is often described as a "scandal" by the media. In politics especially, claims of scandalous behaviour are often used for the express purpose of campaigning against political opponents. Editors should therefore exercise great caution in using the term, as its strong negative connotations are invariably used to infer wrongdoing. The party at the centre of the controversial episode will in most cases deny any such wrongdoing. Editors should avoid using "scandal" without first qualifying it, as it can otherwise be read as an endorsement of one side's assertions.
The term "scandal" should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g. Teapot Dome scandal, Sharpstown scandal). Within the body of an article, its use should be qualified by attributing it to the party which uses it. The term "affair" should generally be avoided as a weasel word, except in certain historical cases where the usage is well established (e.g. Dreyfus Affair). For current affairs, "controversy" is to be preferred, though more specific, but neutral words may also be used.
Dubious use:
The NSA warrantless surveillance scandal concerns surveillance of United States persons incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency ...
Acceptable use:
The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of United States persons incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency ... Critics of the Bush administration have described the controversy as a political scandal.
[edit] Words that can imply facts which may be unsupported
[edit] Linked, associated, affiliated (to / with)
These words can imply a connection without stating the nature of the connection or discussing the evidence for and against it. Often they make a connection seem stronger than the evidence actually supports. If this connection is not well-known, it should be explained in the body of the article or provided in a wikilink or link to an external site. The description should also indicate if the organizations themselves affirm the association or if a third party is making the association.
Dubious use:
- "The Al-Qaeda-linked Jama'at Islamiya"
- "The Enron-affiliated company"
- "X is associated with Scientology"
Acceptable use:
- "Jama'at Islamiya, which shares upper-level members with Al Qaeda" (factual claim)
- "The company, in which Enron owns a 51% stake" (legal affiliation)
- "X is a member of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises" (membership)
[edit] Relationship
A similar obfuscating effect sometimes results from the use of the word "relationship", which besides the unclarity contained in the term "linked" adds much more when speaking without further detail about the relationship between human beings. see Lytton Strachey — Dora Carrington example
[edit] Legend has it, it is said (passive voice)
The passive voice is sometimes appropriate, but is prone to misuse. "As legend has it..." may suggest a need for better citation, or may imply doubt to an extent the editor does not intend. Unattributed passive voice is a slippery substitute for "legends": "X is thought to have..." This is a special case of weasel words.[1]
[edit] Statistics
When presenting statistics and in particular interpreting them, avoid mixing proportions with cardinal numbers, such as in the sentence " In the United Kingdom, 30% of households have pets; 1.5 million of these are dogs." This does not tell you about the proportion of dogs to other pets; neither does it tell you the actual number of households with pets.
Another problem phrase is constructions such as "Nazi Germany had set up 300 concentration camps or prisons", or "2,000 civilians killed or injured". In the first, the truth could be 20 concentration camps and ~280 prisons; it is also ambiguous, suggesting that concentration camps are prisons and vice versa. In the second, the truth could be (and sometimes is) 1 killed and 1,999 injured.
For the same reason the term "casualties" should be used with caution. Some editors use the term to refer to both deaths and injuries, while others use it to refer only to deaths. It is clearer to use the words "x killed and y injured".
Statistics are often very sensitive to accurate phrasing; take care when you cite your sources to do so with precision.
[edit] Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint
A large number of terms are used in everyday speech, and are defined in the dictionary, which nonetheless are almost always applied by "outsiders" in some sphere, to "insiders". For example:
- "The Scientology cult began in..."
- "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization"
- "Pedophilia is a form of sexual perversion"
- "Cripples may find it hard to get a job..."
Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint — that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature.
It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").
So the examples are changed such that:
- Scientology has been called a "cult" by X[1], Y[2], and Z[3] reliable sources
- The KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism
- Pedophilia is a paraphilia
- "Cripple" redirects to "Handicapped"
[edit] Words with controversial or multiple meanings
[edit] Cult, sect
 |
Concern has been expressed that this article or section is missing information about: About where heresy and related terms are or are not appropriate. This concern has been noted on the talk page where it may be discussed whether or not to include such information. |
The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings, often with very negative connotations. In general it should be avoided — don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Wikipedia should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group. It is sometimes said[2] that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions.
An exception to this rule of thumb is the technical use of this term in sociology, which is quite neutral (i.e. small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society). However, the author shouldn't use the term in that sense without explaining exactly what he/she is doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people. The adjective "cultic" (cultic group, cultic behavior) is in such cases preferable, as it is used in sociological context referring to the technical meaning but rarely in everyday language referring to the everyday meaning of cult.
Another acceptable use of the word is in reference to religious practice, e.g. "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis" or "the cult of the saints". See cult (religion).
(For interest's sake, in French, culte means 'religious practice', while secte means both sect and cult. The same applies in: Dutch, which uses cultus and sekte; German, which uses Kult(-us) and Sekte; and Italian, which uses culto and setta)
The word 'sect' is far more neutral and inoffensive, but likewise has several different meanings. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. The word sect doesn't imply novelty. In its non-sociological use it does not imply tension. There are lots of sects: Sufis, Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, etc., that aren't very novel and don't disturb most people. Often, sects follow guidelines that undergo some slow modification over time while cults follow charismatic leaders or written doctrine that never changes, giving all power to the person currently editing the dictionary. Bear in mind that "sect" may imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group of a larger movement, which can bring problems of non-neutrality and offense of its own.
In some cases, a good alternative would be to use the neutral term new religious movement, coined by Eileen Barker, though some groups that are accused of being a cult are not religious or claim not to be so and there is no scholarly consensus what is "new". See list of new religious movements.
Christianity was considered a cult by the Roman Empire in the 1st Century. Falun Gong and some branches of Christianity are considered cults by the Chinese government. Scientology was considered a cult in the USA at one time and is still considered a cult by many in and outside the USA. Some relatively young Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian denominations call the Catholic Church a cult. What's at stake is the power to pass judgement on what beliefs are considered "mainstream" or "true".
[edit] Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter
- This section is about using the terms in articles. For use of the category:terrorists, see the definition there.
- See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.
In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan.
[edit] Fundamentalist
Originally, the word meant "one who rejects ritual and later adaptations, and instead follows the fundamentals [ie, core or original beliefs] of their religion". However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. This sense is also sometimes used in the media and by critics of specific religions.
A fundamentalist is not necessarily an extremist, or even particularly morally strict.
The word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists (of which there are many). If a group does not do so, it is better to use their own self-description, within reasonable limits, or to use a more specific description, since this represents them as they see themselves. If others criticize this, or label them as "fundamentalist", then this can be cited and the term attributed to that source.
Please see the article on fundamentalism for a fuller discussion of this topic.
[edit] Theory
Do not use theory to mean guess or speculation. Words for guesses or speculations in science and history include "hypothesis" and "conjecture".
A common misperception is the belief that a theory just means a "guess". In the natural sciences and other academic fields, a theory is not a guess at all — not even an educated and informed guess. It is a system of explanation in accordance with available knowledge. Ideally it will have been tested carefully to attempt to determine whether or not it matches visible events.
The fact that theories are changeable does not mean they are not accepted. Science as an endeavour expects that all assertions of "truth", be they theories, laws, principles, models, or whatever, to be open to constant scrutiny at all times. As long as the preponderance of evidence supports a theory, it continues to be accepted. As new evidence comes to light, theories evolve to incorporate the new evidence. This does not imply, however, that they are not to be trusted or accepted as is.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested and verified or otherwise falsified by experiment and empirical observation. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations. Confidence in a theory is reinforced by observation. A theory may be disproven if it is contradicted by observations (see falsifiability). The absence of contrary evidence, and the volume of evidence in support of a theory, is what should be considered when deciding the acceptability of a theory.
Scientific principles that are succinctly stated are sometimes referred to as "laws". Examples include the laws of thermodynamics. A scientific law is not, as is sometimes claimed, "a proven theory" because ideas in science are not subject to "proof" in the same way that propositions are in logic. A law is also not "a theory that nobody reasonably doubts" because the inductive nature of science ensures that there is always some doubt when trying to describe the general rules of nature. It is also incorrect to assume a hierarchical structure of hypothesis → theory → law. While scientific laws are based on theories, it is only to the extent that if the theory explains a phenomenon then the law based on it will explain an aspect of the phenomenon. For example, the laws of thermodynamics are succinct but incomplete summaries of the modern theory of thermodynamics. It is theories that are the best explanations science can provide in terms of explanatory power.
In mathematics, the terms theorem or lemma, meaning a proven result, and conjecture, meaning a proposed but unproven hypothesis, are more common for single statements. Theory is used for a body of knowledge, e.g. Number theory, Ring theory, Galois theory.
In several specific areas of published philosophy, the term theory is historically acceptable to describe a very well established line of thinking, or a class of reasoned philosophical speculation such as correspondence theory, consensus theory of truth, pragmatic theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth.
In all of these endeavours, however, the idea is that a theory is a system of thought used to explain phenomena. Avoid using theory when you mean "hypothesis".
[edit] Myth
Myth has multiple technical meanings in different fields, as well as several everyday meanings:
- The word myth in sociology is a story that is important for a group but not verifiable. Lack of verifiability does not necessarily indicate falsehood; "Hindu myth" may refer to historic events for which no objective record exists.
- In folkloristic terms, it means a sacred narrative which is believed to be true.
- In common use, myth refers to a story which is believed to be false.
Except in rare cases (e.g. urban myth), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. Do not use phrases such as "evolution is a myth" or "the myth of the Holocaust", to imply "something that is commonly believed but untrue", or propaganda.
Myth is perfectly valid in its technical sense, for example in an article about religious beliefs. Another proper use would be "The Descent of Man was one of the central myths in 20th century biology", but even this statement cannot be used in an article without establishing the context of sociology, in case the reader thinks that this means that contemporary opinion holds the book to be complete speculation or false propaganda (which is not the intent).
Sometimes people object to the use of myth to describe stories which they believe strongly in. Such uses may be perceived as non-neutral. One should be careful to word such sentences to avoid implying that a myth is necessarily untrue. Similarly, we should not refer to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths"; this implies an obvious value judgement.
[edit] Legendary
Legendary has two meanings that are easily confused and cause problems when used in a biography.
- Legendary can mean a fictitious person whom legends and myths are written about.
- Legendary can mean a person is so celebrated that they have taken on the nature of a legend.
Because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which of the two is meant, it's best to avoid its usage. Use "fictional" to describe a non-existent person.
[edit] Words that have different meanings in different English dialects
A small number of words have different meanings in different English dialects. Some words, for example, mean the opposite in British English to what they do in American English. These should be avoided where possible. Where this is not possible, a brief explanation of which meaning of the word should be given. Examples of this include: public school, to table, and trapezium.
[edit] Article structures that can imply a point of view
As well as individual words, overall features of an article (including its title and section structure) can sometimes imply a viewpoint. This means that there are often cases where editors try to strike a balance between relatively neutral and relatively non-clumsy wording.
[edit] Article title
- See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions
Wikipedia naming conventions favour the most common name for a topic, even if this includes words that should usually be avoided. If there is no common name for the topic, choose a descriptive name that does not imply a conclusion about its subject:
- Example: an article title "Israeli terrorism" inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for "Islamic terrorism".[dubious ] By the way, both of these exist as of August 2006, and redirect to Zionist political violence and Islamist terrorism, respectively. In the former case, the actual article title does not include the word "terrorism"; in the latter case it does, and might better be retitled Islamic political violence.
- Our existing article entitled "Sodomy" is, appropriately, an article about the word, both in common use and in law (in the latter case, mostly historical). It would not be appropriate to use this judgmental term as the title of an article about homosexuality/gay lifestyle: that would inherently imply that LGBT issues are to be viewed from a viewpoint that carries overtones of disgust, unlawfulness, biblical viewpoint and injunctions, and the like.
Or may imply a selective (privileged) viewpoint toward its subject:
- Example: an article title "Proof that Jesus was fictional" effectively makes a claim, and one that is (to say the least) controversial. "Proof that Jesus was real" would have roughly the same problem, even if it expresses a majority view.
- Example: an article title "The conspiracy to kill JFK" strongly suggests that there was such a conspiracy.
A non-neutral title will often be argued over and can make an article hard to balance. Many subjects will have their own small "words to avoid" list — words which within the context of a given article will be viewed as pejorative by one side or the other. These can often be avoided with thought.
- Example: "Criticism of ...." articles would seem to inherently advocate the topic's negative point of view. However, there is no consensus whether "Criticism of .... " articles in general are always POV forks. While it is possible for criticism to be an NPOV evaluation or judgment of something, it more often degrades into POV complaints or condemnation about a topic. "Critique" is a somewhat elevated term for criticism and "review" is used as a synonym for these but may also imply a more comprehensive study.[3] Naming an article "Critique of ..." or "Review of ..." rather than "Criticism of ...." may make it easier for the article to achieve NPOV.
[edit] Article structure
Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.
From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.
We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
See also: Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Pro & con lists
[edit] Words whose meaning may degrade with time
Unless used in specific contexts, or quotes, the meaning of some words will change with time. Be careful when using, for instance:
- yesterday, today, tomorrow
- last/this/next week/month/year
- recent(ly), current(ly), eventual(ly), imminent(ly)/soon
- now
- is
- will/may be
This list is not exhaustive. Note that the use of these terms is acceptable in some cases. The sun will exist tomorrow. In situations where attributable facts are unlikely to change with time, the use of time-sensitive words is permissible.
When reporting time-sensitive facts, qualifying that information with a reference to a date will often prevent the meaning from degrading over time. For example, instead of writing "Person A is still in prison," consider writing "As of January 1, 2007, Person A is still in prison." This is especially important when attributing facts about living persons. Defamatory facts may expire and become false, but editors may not notice those changes. Editors are far more likely to notice an old date.
Consider how your page will read if no one updates it.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
- Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly
- Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project
- Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
- Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms
[edit] Notes
- ^ Passive Voice. Retrieved on 2007-07-13.
- ^ FBI Targets "Right Wing". Retrieved on 2007-05-10.
