Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:56, 20 March 2007 editMartinphi (talk \| contribs)12,452 edits Oh, yes, terrible to use what used to be a real example. Horrible. And the reason is, Bummmm Ba Bummm Bum Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum Milo H. Minderbinder doesn't like it!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:35, 3 March 2020 edit undo1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers197,911 edits Modifying redirect categories using Capricorn ♑
(712 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{style-guideline\|]}}
	{{style}}
	There is probably no word that should ''never'' be used in a Misplaced Pages 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).

			{{Redirect category shell\|
	==Sorts of terms to avoid==
			{{R from merge}}
	In general, words and expressions should be avoided if they:
			{{R to project namespace}}
	# Are ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific. See also ].
			{{R from shortcut}}
	# Are derogatory or offensive.
			{{R to subpage}}
	# Imply that Misplaced Pages shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint.
			}}
	# Are condescending toward (that is, "spoonfeed") the reader.
	# Contain unnecessary ] (except for technical terminology when appropriate to the subject).
	# Are unnecessarily flattering or positive. See also ].
	# 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 Misplaced Pages, given they are used accurately, correctly, and sparingly.

	== Words that may advance a point of view ==
	===''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, carry a pretense of 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.

	====''Claim''====
	The word ''claim'' can be used to mean "assert, say". Its usage must be considered. The '']''
	notes this connotation: " to state to be true, especially when open to question".
	The AHD also notes that " makes no pretense to scholarliness", and in this regard the word claim is quite neutral because it ''avoids pretense''. It is far more important to avoid words which contain pretense of authority when the statement is in
	fact only a claim —attributed to one particular viewpoint. For example :
	:Some claim that the word "claim" itself is quite neutral, and appropriate to for repsesenting two sides of a debate equally. Others claim that it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness.

	The usage depends on context. Dubious use:
	* Paranoid schizophrenics typically '''claim''' that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them.

	Acceptable use:
	* According to Microsoft's '''claim''', Apple inflicted $2 million worth of damages on it by infringing its patents. ], this terminology is not only acceptable but possibly required, since any other term would not be standard jargon and therefore might be imprecise.]

	====''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 "") is also sometimes used to the same effect.

	====''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.


	====''Report''====

	Likewise, the verb '''report''' can bestow a sense of impartiality on a source, such as a political action committee or a government press agency, that may be inappropriate:

	*The Korean Central News Agency '''reported''' that North Korea had launched its first satellite into orbit.

	====''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.

	====Alternatives and suggestions ====
	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 : "There will not be a trial due to poor response from Asia."

	====It should be noted====
	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 ] 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.

	===''So-called'', ''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; Misplaced Pages maintains a ], 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 "]", to which similar principles apply) can suggest that a term is invalid. Both the ''AHD'' and ''Webster's'' 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 Misplaced Pages.

	''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.
	* Those who live in the vicinity of Chernobyl '''supposedly''' suffer from elevated disease rates.
	* Feather wool is a type of knitting yarn or cotton that is '''supposed''' to resemble wool.
	* The district's congressman '''purportedly''' exclaimed, "The Constitution is just a piece of paper."

	Acceptable use:
	* Protons are not in fact elementary, but are rather composed of smaller particles, '''so-called''' quarks.
	* O.J. Simpson '''allegedly''' murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994.

	===''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 state he is just a misunderstood freedom fighter."
	:* "Homeopathy says that dilute solutions can be therapeutic, ''although'' science says this is incorrect."
	:* 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."
	:*''Despite'' the evidence that crop circles are of human origin, various paranormal theories continue to enjoy some currency, ''although'' these all violate Occam's Razor.
	Acceptable use:
	:* "Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."

	===''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 ] 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."

	====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.

	===''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)

	===''Ironically'', ''amusingly'', ''unfortunately'', ''interestingly'', etc ===

	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 "] made ironic use of a sample of a ] 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, Misplaced Pages 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 ]) to show that you're not using adverbs to express your personal observations in the article.

	===''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 a value judgment about any future state.

	===''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. ], ]). 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 ], ''except'' in certain historical cases where the usage is well established (e.g. ]). For current affairs, "controversy" is to be preferred.

	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'''.

	==Words implying a value judgement==
	===''Hard'', ''far'' (''left''/''right'') ===

	As political descriptors; for example, "Jörg Haider's Far-Right ']'" or "Derek Hatton, the Hard-Left ']' politician". The two words are relative value judgements, and do not in themselves describe a political party's policies or viewpoint; merely that they are, or are perceived to be, greatly at variance with the imagined neutral point of the writer.

	For example, some positions (such as support for nationalized health care) which are shared across most of the political spectrum in Europe are found almost exclusively on the Left in the United States, and the political Right of the U.S. is more liberal than the political Left of Saudi Arabia on the topic of women's rights. Similarly, ]'s ] party is described by almost all commentators outside of the party as being "far right", but the party itself strongly denies this qualification. This has to be documented as such in the article of that party. Considerations such as these make it very difficult to objectively categorize political positions as Left or Right in an objective way that everyone will agree with, much less agree what is "hard" or "extreme" Left or Right. If possible (and relevant), a more precise term should be used: for example, "democratic socialism" or "liberal conservatism" instead of "left-wing" or "centre-right".

	It may be admissible, for the sake of brevity and given the overwhelming preponderance of terminology, to refer to the Front or Front politicians as "far right" in other articles, if some quick indication of its political position is necessary. But in a main article, there is room to describe rather than label such groups.

	===''Extremist''===
	Unacceptable usage of "extremist" is much the same as of "hard" or "far", above, but is not limited to politics and religion. It connotes that the writer considers the subject to be "extreme" as compared to some ] notion of "not extreme".

	==Words that can imply facts which may be unsupported==
	===''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 ]-''linked'' ]"
	:* "The ]-''affiliated'' ]"
	:* "X is ''associated'' with ]"

	Acceptable use:
	:* "], which ''shares upper-level members with'' ]" (factual claim)
	:* "The company, in which Enron ''owns a 51% stake''" (legal affiliation)
	:* "X is ''a member of'' the ]" (membership)

	====''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 ] between human beings. see ]

	=== ''Legend has it'', ''it is said'' ===
	"As legend has it..." is often a screen for lazy research or where the narrator wants to distance him/herself from what he/she perceives might be bogus invented "legends" (some of which are harmless in intention). Unattributed passive voice is a slippery substitute for "legends": "X is thought to have..." This is a special case of ].

	===Statistics===
	When presenting and in particular interpreting statistics, avoid mixing proportions with cardinal numbers, such as in the sentence " In the ], 30% of households have ]s; 1.5 million of these are ]s." This doesn't 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 "] had set up 300 ] or ]", or "2,000 ]s 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 to only deaths. It is clearer to use the words "x killed and x injured".

	Statistics are often very sensitive to accurate phrasing; take care when you ] to do so with precision.

	== 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 none the less are almost always applied by "outsiders" in some sphere, to "insiders". For example:
	:* "The ] ''cult'' began in..."
	:* "The ] is a ''racist'' organization"
	:* "] is a form of sexual ''perversion''"
	:* "'']s'' may find it hard to get a job..."
	:* "] is a ''pseudoscientific'' approach to healing"
	Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint -- that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". Most pejorative terms work this way, and many can cite wide usage. It is the fact that the usage is accepted outside but not usually inside, which means they imply a point of view, that the article too is looking from outside, not inside.

	(This is not the same as ]. We generally seek to describe, rather than find a ''harmless term''. So the description of Scientology as a cult is ''attributed to a source'', the KKK is ''a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism'', "Cripple" redirects to ''"Handicapped"'' which is not considered as ] (unfair, prejudicial) by disabled people, and the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity... but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards".)

	It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear POV or ''may'' be perceived so by some notable group, ''even if technically they aren't'', if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally ] an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").

	This applies even if the term is technically accurate, or very credibly sourced, because accurate and sourced terms can in certain contexts still imply a viewpoint.

	Terms such as these almost inevitably function as a description from the point of view of "outside the belief" of those to whom it is applied. It does not always imply neutrality.

	==Words with controversial or multiple meanings==

	=== ''Cult'', ''sect'' ===
	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 Misplaced Pages should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group. It is sometimes said{{who}} 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 ] at ]" or "". See ].

	(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'', and German, which uses ''Kult(-us)'' and ''Sekte''.)

	The word ']' 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 ], coined by ], 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 ]s.

	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".

	=== ''Terrorist'', ''terrorism'' ===
	:: ''This section is about using the terms in articles. For use of the ], see the definition there.''

	There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below.

	:1. The words ''terrorism'' and ''terrorist'' may be cited where there is a ] and ] indication of '''who''' is calling a person or group ''terrorist''. This is the standard Misplaced Pages format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear ''who'' is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls ''themselves'' "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

	:2. It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Misplaced Pages has handled terrorism can be found at:
	:* ] - "Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... ''The Government of the ] regards'' Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily ''because''..."
	:* ] - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. ''The organisation has been outlawed and classified as'' a terrorist group ''in'' and many other countries..."
	:* ] - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... ''The Contras were considered terrorists by'' the Sandinistas ''because'' many of their attacks targeted civilians."
	:* ] - "The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 29 countries (])." (This was the result of ].)

	'''Encyclopedic:'''
	:* X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
	:* X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings , is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C .
	:* Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group

	'''Not encyclopedic:'''
	:* X is a terrorist group.
	:* Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
	:* After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

	====Arguments for and against describing an entity as terrorist====

	Arguments for:
	:* It's a legitimate word and dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments. For example, US army manual provides a brief definition saying that "terror is the calculated use of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear".
	:* The term does not reflect a bias towards any political orientation, as it refers to the methods and not to the opinions and beliefs shared by the terrorist group. For example, both left-wing groups trying to conduct revolution and right-wing racist groups trying to stop immigration may be termed terrorist.
	:* Given a consistent definition, and entire body of facts, it is possible to unambiguously decide whether certain methods are terrorist or not. A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which ''has'' been used in Misplaced Pages, might be illuminating.
	:* Unlike traditional media, Misplaced Pages can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, ] is a good example; it's cross-linked to ] and ] and ] and ], etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say ''why'' we're doing that—say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.
	:* That the term might be misused does not mean that it should not be used at all.

	Arguments against:
	:* The word "Terrorist" is pejorative. Regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to a person, a group, or our enemy, doing so is not encyclopedic. For example, even if ''everyone'' were to agree that Bill Clinton is evil, we can't make an article entitled "]." Doing so is not encyclopedic.
	:* The word "terrorism" describes not just certain methods, but also a negative bias. The set of methods falling under terrorism is preferably called "defence" and "counter terrorism" by the entities when describing their own actions. Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy has a definition very close to terrorist methods.
	:* There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
	:* Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist". If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents call them, we would have to include:
	::* ] under the rule of the ], Chechen rebels, ], forcible ] of lands inhabited by ], ], ], ], ], ], ], Resistance movement during World War II., the American Revolutionary ], ], ], ], ].
	:: These examples also suggest the standards for applying the label depend upon perspective and are not consistent.

	====Comments from other articles on the definition of ''terrorism''====

	From the article ]:
	:''Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.''

	From the article ]:
	:''The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified...''
	:''Because of the above pejorative connotations, those accused of being 'terrorists' rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (from guerra Spanish for 'war' meaning 'small war'), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning 'struggler'), or fedayeen ('prepared for martyrdom').''

	The article ] attempts to describe a definition of terrorism which is widely held in many overlapping views.

	=== ''Fundamentalist'' ===
	Originally, the word meant "one who rejects ritual and later adaptations, and instead follows the fundamentals 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 ] for a fuller discussion of this topic.

	===''Theory''===
	Do not use '']'' to mean ''guess'' or ''speculation''. Words for guesses or speculations in science and history include "]" and "]".

	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 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 ] of the manner of interaction of a set of ] ], capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested and verified or otherwise falsified by ] and ] observation. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations. Confidence in a theory is reinforced by ]. A theory may be disproven if it is contradicted by observations (see ]). 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 "]". Examples include the ]. 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 ]. A law is also not "a theory that nobody reasonably doubts" because the ] 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 ] -> theory -> law. While scientific laws are based on theories, it is only to the extent that the theory explains a phenomenon that 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 ]. 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. ], ], ].

	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 ], ], ], ].

	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".

	===''Myth''===
	''Myth'' has multiple technical meanings in different fields, as well as several everyday meanings:
	* The word '']'' in ] 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 ] 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. ]), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. '''Do not''' use phrases such as "evolution is a myth" or "the myth of the ]", 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 "'']'' was one of the central myths in ] ]", 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.

	===''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.

	==Words that mean the opposite in UK and US English==

	A small number of words mean the opposite in UK English to what they do in US 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''. (See ].)

	==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.

	===Article title===
	{{seealso\|Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions}}

	Misplaced Pages naming conventions favour the most common name for a topic, even if this includes words that should usually be avoided. If there are 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 Misplaced Pages takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for "Islamic terrorism". By the way, both of these exist as of August 2006, and redirect to ] and ], 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 ].
	* Our existing article entitled "]" 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 towards 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.

	===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 attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

	From ]:
	{{quotation\|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 — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.<p>

	We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.}}

	See also: ]

	== See also ==
	* ] especially ].
	*]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	]
	]
	]

	]
	]

Latest revision as of 15:35, 3 March 2020

Redirect to:

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch

This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:

From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.

To a project page: This is a redirect from any page inside or outside of project (Misplaced Pages: or WP:) space to any page in the project namespace. The above category link leads to a list of redirects from inside project space. Redirects from outside project space are automatically sorted to Category:Redirects to project namespace.

From a shortcut: This is a redirect from a shortcut in any namespace to a page in any namespace.
- Shortcuts are wikilinked on community pages, talk pages, and edit summaries, but not in mainspace articles.

To a subpage: This is a redirect to a subpage. In a page title, a subpage name appears after a forward slash (/); for example, "Misplaced Pages:Technical move requests" redirects to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests, which is a subpage of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Please note that not every page title with "/" in its title is a subpage. See this template's documentation for details.

When appropriate, protection levels are automatically sensed, described and categorized.