Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Addition to Note C suggestion

I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed. Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out. 5Q5|^✉ Wikipedia:Manual of Style "WP:WORDS" redirects here. For the policy on words as article topics, see Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For the formatting of words mentioned in text, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Words as words. For the Words of Wisdom essay, see Wikipedia:Words of wisdom. "WP:LABEL" redirects here. For Wiki labels gadget, see Wikipedia:Labels.td§174.250.210.10 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)±1gin time tested&dropforged

"Issue"

EEng has deleted do not use “issue” for “problem” or “dispute”. [1] This is a recent change in use, which started out as a euphemism for ‘problem’ but seems to be treated as a standard usage by young people. There is now a semantic problem with this, because it may be unclear whether ‘issue’ is used to mean ‘issue’ or ‘problem’. So I would prefer if this wording was reinstated. But I’m not sure that it should be in the Euphemisms section. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how that differs from standard usage. Merriam-Webster has "1a(1): a vital or unsettled matter; 1a(2): concern, problem; and 1b: a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties".--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My dictionary (Oxford Concise) has it differently. The first meaning is about issues of shares, magazines, etc. Meaning 2 is about an outgoing, outflow etc. Meaning 3 ‘a point in question; an important subject of debate or litigation’ Meaning 4 ‘a result; an outcome; a decision’. Meaning 5 ‘ Law children, progeny’ Meaning 6 ‘ archaic a discharge of blood etc.’

There is no mention of ‘problem’.

So it may be that this is a difference between British and American English, as well as a difference between recent and traditional usage. ::Sweet6970 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So a problem or dispute are two kinds of issue, among many. Calling a problem or dispute an issue is a a way of "avoiding the issue", to get a bit circular in the metaphor... "Problem" and "dispute" are much clearer ways of specifying what kind of an issue (meaning OC3 or MW1a(2)) is being considered. As an encyclopedia, we should strive for clarity. I think recommending not using "issue" when the meaning can be expressed more accurately by "problem" or "dispute" is good guidance. When the dictionaries indicate that issue means the same thing, not just a similar thing, as problem or dispute, we can follow .Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that, but we certainly do not need an entry for it in MOS:WTW. There is no end to phrases and words that can potentially be used in a confusing way, often due to dialectal differences, but this guideline is about usages that are usually problematic and/or seriously problematic. As I said at a similar thread at WT:MOS, about differing US and UK expectations of terms like "tabled", someone should just write a style essay about this, which can grow arbitrarily detailed over time with examples of terms that can be used confusingly. MoS, however, is already over-long and adding more material to it is almost always controversial at this point. This just really is not the place to make nit-picking points about terms like "issue" or "tabled".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

People "afflicted" with disease

MOS:EUPH says "If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that." As well as conflicting with MOS:MED this just advocates crass writing; I cannot think of any example where following this advice would be good. I removed it but it was reinstated by Smasongarrison. Paging WT:MED for further input. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not in favor of "afflicted" terminology at all; stigmatizing, unnecessary, and going the opposite direction of the intent of MOS:MED. If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that. --> If a person has a medical condition, say just that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, it is not the nineteenth century.[2] Illness doesn't come from Satan. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I would at least include the basic aspect from MOS:MED which is to avoid saying "suffered from" or that the person was a victim.--Masem (t) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with SandyGeorgia. If a person has a medical condition, say just that. – as neutral as we can get. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

My guess is Alex and Sandy see this as recommending using the word "afflicted" (or "affliction") while Smasongarrison sees this as meaning the same thing as "if someone has a condition, just say they have it". I don't think you're saying very different things; it's just a matter of how to clearly present it (and whether it needs to be presented as opposed to simply linking to MOS:MED and the disability style essay). I dare say since there are clearly multiple people reading this as prescriptive for "afflicted", it's probably better not to leave as-is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes; it's just confusing that we are using on a MOS page the very terminology we intend to avoid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And yes, I read "just say that" as referring to the wording used. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As in just say they have a condition, for example: they have a headache, they have a broken leg, they have cancer. It is clear, simple and steers clear of the ouskirts of verbosity. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm thrilled with changing "affliction" to "condition"! My concern was the complete removal of the advice of avoiding euphemisms related to medical conditions. (Like "wheelchair bound", "suffering from", "special needs" etc. )

Mason (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would say overall the practice in primary journal articles is to use phrases like "person afflicted with disease" because "afflicted" in this usage just means "affected by a disease". It's often a negative connotation, and some usages indicate mandatory "suffering" or "difficulty", but it traditionally just means "affected by". But the phrasing "person afflicted by" is person-first, it's not as derogatory as "suffering from" and it is disease-context-specific. I have yet to come across a better alternative and would be happy to see if anyone has one. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

A person has a condition; an individual with a condition. It is as derogatory as "suffering from" to the extent it implies the historical usage of evil spirits. There is no need to use the word afflicted on this page.

Taking the Tourette syndrome example, the term afflicted is used in recent journal literature to describe those most severely afflicted (who are the extreme minority, sample), or to connect affliction to evil spirits (sample), or to describe dated/historical views on TS (sample, sample). Same can be said for dementia with Lewy bodies. The word is not used in any of the major secondary literature cited at the article. Scholars don't use the word; neither should we. We don't need it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Afflicted" in the bible (KJV) has a connotation of "burden" -

Leviticus 23:27 "Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord."

Exodus 1:11 "Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew."

Psalms 25:16 "Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted."

I'm not sure that "evil spirits" are any more connected to this word than "burden" itself or "affected by". I would love to see some sources on that. Sure it meant "burdened by" or "in distress from" in the middle ages [3] but it certainly does not mean "evil spirits" in its most historical middle english uses. Where are you getting that from? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion by SandyGeorgia as that phrasing is apparently uncontroversial (thus far, at least) and explicitly preferred to the original phrasing by several participants here. I would suggest that the most productive way to carry on this discussion might be to focus on whether to include examples of phrasings to avoid (such as "victim" and "suffer from" mentioned by Masem). TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the new language. I think it might be useful to add one of the examples that @Pbsouthwood posted in this conversation. After reading this discussion, I'm a little concerned that someone will interpret this advice as meaning you should write "He had a medical condition" instead of, e.g., "He had cancer".

Tangentially, in any given situation, there are people who suffer and people who don't; there are people who perceive themselves as being afflicted by outside forces (demonic or otherwise) and people who don't. Even if I have difficulty imagining anyone experiencing certain things without suffering, I think it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to treat these personal/emotional/cultural responses to a situation as being the same for everyone. I would sometimes accept "She suffered through ____" or (preferably) "She channeled her suffering from ____ into her <reason for notability>" when we have a strong source that uses that language and expands upon how the suffering affected the person, but not "Everyone suffers during _____". (By contrast, "lost his battle with _____" is always an unencyclopedic cliche.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Well yes, I would agree that "lost his battle with" is a bad idea, given that it paints weakness in the part of the loser. But I really fundamentally do not understand the issue with saying that illnesses are inherently negative in how they affect the ill. Sure, for some circumstances, there are conditions which some may consider a disease that others will consider a divergent state of natural variation (eg Autism) and we need to respect that, and specifically not label everyone in such a situation as "afflicted" but, why group all conditions in one boat? Is anyone really saying that cancer and Autism are the same category?

If it isn't a negative condition, it probably isn't "afflicting." But to suggest that a condition like cancer is doing anything other than "afflicting" is just absurd. I would love to meet the people who enjoy having it. And when people don't care about it, or are "unaffected" by an illness, that is actually also considered a pathological state in medicine: la belle indifference — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Words to watch is a guideline, There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. If the carefully considered opinion of the editors of an article disagrees with a guideline, other ways of expressing the information may be acceptable in context.
Also, I have attempted to clarify per WhatamIdoing, but without using a specific example. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Whatever other objections there may be to using "afflicted with", it does not add any useful information. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, the range of cancer is so broad, and the definition at the edges so porous, that talking about "all cancer patients" is pretty much always wrong. While I don't imagine that most people "enjoy" having cancer overall, there are people for whom it's basically nothing (e.g., they have bigger problems; they're too young or too disabled/demented to understand the diagnosis), and cancers for whom the diagnosis is clinically unimportant (e.g., early non-melanoma skin cancers, which are so common and have so little effect on lifespan that they don't even count these cases in the cancer statistics; ~80% of males technically have prostate cancer by age 80, but it's usually so slow growing that they'll die of something else long before anyone would notice). There are also people for whom the experience of cancer has some desirable aspects, such as personal growth or getting to be the center of attention.

In the end, this means that it'd be factually wrong to say that "All women diagnosed with breast cancer suffer" from, well, anything, because some of those "women diagnosed with breast cancer" also happen to be "women with advanced Alzheimer's", and that subset will experience neither disruptive physical symptoms nor from the knowledge that if Alzheimer's wasn't going to kill them next year, then breast cancer might kill them in five or ten years. While there are strong trends (most women are diagnosed with breast cancer at a younger and healthier age), it does not apply to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I imagine you would predict, I agree with most of the above. It makes sense for prostate cancer etc, in which slow growing tumors cause very little actual physical suffering. But I would counter that emotional anxiety/fear of patients is still a factor so it's not like it's a walk in the park. All in all, I'm not that passionate about this and am not bothered that consensus disagrees with my position. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

>All in all, I'm not that passionate about this and am not bothered that consensus disagrees with my position.

That's wonderfully refreshing!

You do make reasonable points about how the experience isn't often a walk in the park. And in those cases it's fine (and I'd be in agreement with you) to include that information for specific individuals if there's clear citable evidence. (It's the challenge of generalizing broadly without evidence based on assumptions about others lived experiences).

Mason (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Contentious label section

I propose adding the following,

Avoid terms like deniers, skeptics, or doubters. Explicitly describe the subject's opinion.

• He denies climate change.
• He disagrees with mainstream scientific research that shows the climate is changing.

AP stylebook suggests using this approach. Madame Necker (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this vague reference to AP related to this? Is there evidence that a significant number of worthwhile references say climate change doubters? I doubt it. Oppose. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan You are referring to an outdated version of AP stylebook, which is probably what causes your confusion. 2022 edition recommends against using doubter too. Madame Necker (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I only have access to the 55th (2020-2022) edition, not the 56th (2022-2024) edition, but for reference on what the 55th edition says:

Do not use terms like climate change deniers, climate change skeptics or climate change doubters. Be specific about an individual or group of people’s beliefs. For instance: people who do not agree with mainstream science that says the climate is changing. Or people who do not believe that human activity is responsible for the bulk of climate change. Or people who disagree with the severity of climate change projected by scientists.

I entirely agree with the AP stylebook here. But I don't think that "denier" or "doubter" are really value-laden words. They're more just imprecise, as the three examples given by the AP demonstrate (are you referring to people who say "the earth isn't warming", "it is warming but humans aren't responsible", or "anthropogenic climate change is real but it won't be as bad as the scientists say"?). I'm not sure where the AP's advice here should be written down, or if it even needs to be written down, but I do think the section on value-laden labels would not be appropriate. Endwise (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is also avoid WP editors misclassifying these people and promote editors to explain more why someone disagrees with climate change/etc. Without engaging in excessive false balance. Masem (t) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that, and dislike the tendency to label people rather than describing/explaining their views/actions, but I think MOS:LABEL should be more about labels which impart values, like "racist" or "terrorist". Endwise (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

This would definitely apply to values, such as current terms climate change deniers and skeptics...both terms can be used to imprecisely paint how a person views climate change, which, when misused, tends to also attack their character. They can definitely be value-laden. Masem (t) 10:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I was also referring to the 55th edition. Thanks for correction. Madame Necker (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Opposed because

(A) The section already includes "denialist" in the text box with sample value-laden labels, and each new word proposed here (skeptic, denier, doubter) is basically a synonym that is already included within the meaning if not the black-and-white text.

(B) The proposal uses Holy Commandment language (Do not use...) but the long standing section doesn't say that. Instead it says are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So this proposal would overrule that flexible guideline in place of "Do not use". No thanks; if the significant RS use the label we should too, but with inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is has been in the bix and not followed means its a problem. And per BLP we are required to take a more impartial, dispassionate tone, even if the press at large have opted for a different term. AP herre is driving the press away from this language so we absolutely catch up with them even if that means we abandon terms used in okder coverage. Masem (t) 04:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, not value-laden and potentially WP:CREEPy in that at this point you're not just referencing specific words but trying to dictate entire ways of covering entire topics, which is far outside the scope of this guideline. Additionally, it doesn't contain the requisite exception for using using the term when it is widely used in reliable sources to describe the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion Let's discuss wording, specifics, and exceptions instead of opposing the addition of a useful advice. @NewsAndEventsGuy proposal does not use command language, but tells to "avoid". Madame Necker (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per NewsAndEventsGuy, Aquillion, and Endwise. We already have "deniers" listed, and "skeptics" and "doubters" would just bludgeon the point. I'm not seeing any evidence of this being a problem that needs to be fixed at this point. Most articles I'm aware of may use "climate change denialist" as many of our RSes use similar or the same terms, per the existing MOS wording. But most of these also explain the specific person's views. Those that do not, should be changed per this MOS already. I empathize with the proposal, and understand what it's trying to do, but I don't think it would fix any of the suspected problems. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I'm not sure if I support the specific change but I do support the general intent. Many sources are not careful about how they apply labels that can make it appear someone is outside of the acceptable window of reasonable (far-x, alt-x, X denier etc). Rather than adopt the terms of popular media or media that is trying to persuade, we should be trying to explain. Springee (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a bad idea. We need to be able to discuss denials and deniers. Andre🚐 16:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan This proposal allows us to discuss them without labeling them. Madame Necker (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hello @Madame Necker, it's great to see new editors such as yourself being so interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff at Wikipedia. However, your proposal does not sound sound. We have had similar discussions before, who were riddled with issues (and at least a few socks trying to push a political agenda). I agree we need to discuss people fairly (but we have WP:BLP for that); and I do not see an issue beyond that. Some people are denying the Armenian genocide, and it's good that we can describe that without having to resort to complicated wording which makes it seem as denying a well-documented event is acceptable. Here in Germany, we actually have a law against denying the Holocaust. But I digress; this suggestion would indeed just introduce WP:CREEP. Again, I point to WP:BLP and similar, we already tell people to cite sources (even "Western" sources are acceptable, yes). --LordPeterII (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Upon reading this written out, I feel like I should apologize for being a tad passive-aggressive or implying things. @Madame Necker I was checking your contributions and became sceptical, since you only edited in a few very controversial areas and ended up here rather quickly. I am not implying you are a sock, it's just that I've had previous bad experience on this page (the aforementioned "similar discussions"), so I'm on high alert if I see anything unusual. I realise you were likely meaning well, so please see my reaction in this context. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you @LordPeterII, I too believe you were well intentioned. Last week, I had had a bicycle accident and now after reading your reply I can understand why some of my comments might have sounded rude to my sister. We are humans and stress sometimes causes us to do unfortunate things. I think you are a hardworking editor and I deeply sympathize with you. Madame Necker (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose formally, since I forgot to do so while semi-ranting above. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, this veers on censorship. We need to be able to discuss those who deny fact. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 00:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Adjustment of guideline re "controversial"

This page currently says:

"Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies"

I suggest that the words "describing an individual" be removed. The logic does not just apply to individuals but to anything that one might want to apply the word to. 82.132.214.74 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - as long as controversies are described in detail, I actually think this terminology is still applicable for events, places, etc. with no harm to the project. Would support adding "or organizations" to this however, as I think the same logic applies as with individuals. (namely, WP:BLP). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

lets take something that there would be no legal facets at all, like a concept or idea. Say, the legality of abortion or gay rights in general. We know there are multiple sides to this but we should not simply say its controversial because of that. we want sourcing for attributing that (which shouldnt be too hard), as simply having multiple sides doesnt make something controversial ( such as the various forms of quantum theory are more civilized debate and far from a controversy). Masem (t) 22:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Contentious Labels

Proposal: Insert a line in the Contentious labels section which reads "For labels like terrorist or freedom fighter which express an opinion on a person or group, establish who describes them as this (even if there is reliable sources describing them as such). One person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter."

Reasoning: This makes it clear that even if a reliable source describes the subject as a terrorist or freedom fighter, it should be clear this is still a POV. For example in the IRA article it has "It was designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland".

It makes sense for the situation around terrorist to be explained like "-gate" and "psuedo-" are, especially as MOS:TERRORIST links here.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute over puffery and promotional text

I have had significant pushback to the removal of puffery and promotional content at Minneapolis. The opinion of others more familiar with puffery would be appreciated. Please see:

• Talk:Minneapolis#Photo caption
• Talk:Minneapolis#Deletions by Magnolia677
• Talk:Minneapolis#Dakota

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I have tried to give some suggestions there, although I'm not an expert on the matter. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)