| Revision as of 04:54, 18 September 2005 editFuelWagon (talk | contribs)5,956 edits "However" is POV. I recently criticized SlimVirgin's edit on a page for using "however" and she modifies the policy page, deleting the "however" entry.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:35, 3 March 2020 edit undo1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers197,847 edits Modifying redirect categories using Capricorn ♑ |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
:''Part of the ] Series'' |
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
{{Shortcut|]}} |
|
|
There are no words that should never be used in wikipedia articles. However, there are many words and phrases that are good flags for text that are inappropriate for an article, either because it is not ] or for some other reason. In general, prefer nouns and verbs over adjectives and adverbs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
In general, words or expressions should be avoided that are |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
:1. Ambiguous or non-specific. See also ] (disputed) |
|
|
|
{{R to project namespace}} |
|
:2. Pejorative or offensive |
|
|
|
{{R from shortcut}} |
|
:3. Condescending towards the readers or because they "spoonfeed" the reader |
|
|
|
{{R to subpage}} |
|
:4. Flattering or very positive. See also ] (disputed) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Obvious, etc. == |
|
|
'''''Of course''''', '''''obviously''''', '''''clearly''''', etc. can all sound very condescending. If what you're saying is too obvious to include in the text, then don't include it. (But do ] when it may result in a better article.) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally ''"of course"'' 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Subtly advancing certain points of view == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Well-meaning, so-called === |
|
|
'''Well meaning''' and '''so-called''' could be used to smear without actually including any facts. Note that the alternate use of ''so-called'' in introducing a new term does not have this problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
===However=== |
|
|
Text like "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." implies 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.", although even the simple order of presentation raises concerns about neutrality. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Fundamentally === |
|
|
Against use: |
|
|
Statements about what X "fundamentally is" ignore 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Naturally === |
|
|
Use ''naturally'' for "in a natural manner," such as: |
|
|
*Plutonium may occur ''naturally''. |
|
|
*Obsidian is a type of ''naturally'' occurring glass. |
|
|
*Cultural anthropologists assume that human beings are ''naturally'' social. |
|
|
|
|
|
or to indicate an artificial but convenient conceptualization: |
|
|
*Machiavelli's life falls naturally into three periods. |
|
|
|
|
|
Do not use ''naturally'' for "wouldn't you just know it," such as: |
|
|
*"Naturally, Protestant critics have jumped on this bandwagon." |
|
|
|
|
|
Do not use ''naturally'' for "without a doubt," such as: |
|
|
*The point of Brahms's work has naturally been lost by critics. |
|
|
|
|
|
In certain areas, especially mathematics, the words "''natural''" or "''naturally''" have precise technical meanings, which do not carry any other of the usual connotations of the word. 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 naturalness, and without reference to an external, published authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Linked - relationship === |
|
|
"Linked" is often used to describe terrorist groups, e.g. "the al-Qaeda-linked Jama'at Islamiya", but it is curiously devoid of meaning and may hide lack of information. Describing two phenomena or entities as "linked" unnecessarily obfuscates their relationship - if more information is available, the relationship should be clearly spelled out; if information is tenuous this should also be made clear. "Linked" may describe a broad range of relationships between two groups, and therefore may make that relationship seem unrealistically strong. ] may be a good alternative in case statistical data of two variables has been analyzed. |
|
|
|
|
|
A similar obfuscating effect sometimes results from the use of the word "relationship", which besides the unclarity contained in the term "linked" adds many more when speaking without further detail about the ] between human beings. see ] |
|
|
|
|
|
===Statistics=== |
|
|
Be careful 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. This should not be a problem if you ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ~2,000 injured. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the same reason the term "casualties" should be used with caution, as it typically refers to the total number of individuals killed or injured. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misnomers== |
|
|
===Myth=== |
|
|
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 common use, ''myth'' refers to a story which is believed to be false. And in ] terms, it means the opposite, a sacred narrative which is believed to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
Except in rare cases (e.g. ]), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. ''Myth'' is perfectly valid in an article about religious beliefs; ''however'', do not use phrases such as "evolution is a myth." A 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, lest the reader think this statement asserts 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. One should be careful to avoid implying that a myth may be invalid. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Theory=== |
|
|
'']'' is a word which has similarly lost its precise meaning in common use. In ], a theory is an explanation of ] which is consistent with the available ] and supported by repeatable ]s. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations. Except in ] (or other mathematical sciences, such as ] or ]), a theory cannot be proven to be correct. However, confidence in a theory can be reinforced by experimentations, the result of which fit the theory. A theory may be disproven if it is contradicted by observations. |
|
|
|
|
|
Scientific theories such that the confidence in them is so high that nobody reasonably doubts their validity are sometimes referred to as "laws" or even "facts". An example is the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. |
|
|
|
|
|
A common misperception is that a theory is "only a guess", which is mainly a misunderstanding about the development of theories. A theory is not only an educated guess, but the best explanation according to available knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
|
Do not use ''theory'' to mean ''guess'' or ''speculation''. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Categories == |
|
|
=== ] === |
|
|
The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings and has 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 what is wrong with the group. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the exceptions to this rule of the thumb is the technical use this term has 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 you are doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people. |
|
|
|
|
|
A good alternative would be to use the term ], coined by ], though some groups that are accused of being a cult are not religious. |
|
|
|
|
|
The word ']' is far more neutral and inoffensive, as it doesn't imply novelty or tension but has a different meaning. There are lots of sects: Sufis, Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, etc., who aren't very novel (some, in fact, avoid novelty altogether) and don't make anyone else very tense. Often, sects follow guidelines that undergo some slow modification over time while cults follow charismatic leaders or doctrines in writing that never change, giving all power to the person currently editing the dictionary. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some people assert that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions. Christianity ''was'' considered a cult by the Roman Empire in the 1st Century. Falun Gong and some branches of Christianity are considered cults to 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; the German national government has imposed measures on scientology's freedom. In general, any new belief system clashes with the "tried and true" extant system in place within a social or religious order. (However, 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".) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For interest's sake, in French, ''culte'' means worship, and ''secte'' means both sect and cult. The same applies to Dutch and German languages with the words ''cultus'', ''sekte'', ''Kult(-us)'' and ''Sekte''. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] === |
|
|
Arguments for use: |
|
|
|
|
|
* It's a legitimate word with well-defined meaning. Dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing ] for political reasons without actually being a government." When governments accuse each other of "]" you are over the line into ] and no definition will help you. |
|
|
* The fact that most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations is not relevant to the fact that they are indeed terrorist (if they are, under a given definition). A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which ''has'' been used in Misplaced Pages, might be illuminative. |
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
* The fact that the term is often misused does not mean that it should not be used at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments against use: |
|
|
* There is no strict definition in use worldwide. |
|
|
* Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries. |
|
|
* Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist. |
|
|
* Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist". |
|
|
* There is no hope that we will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not. |
|
|
* The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is dubious indeed; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism". |
|
|
* There are many groups that some people call "terrorist", but embracing such labels would be very controversial, for example: |
|
|
** State of ] |
|
|
** States of ], ], ], ] under the rule of the ] |
|
|
** ] and ] |
|
|
** Contemporary ] |
|
|
** Groups conducting revolution, such as the ], are routinely denigrated as "terrorist" |
|
|
** Almost all guerrilla groups (like ] or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist" |
|
|
** Almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of being "terrorist" |
|
|
** Organizations such as the American Revolutionary ]—revered in the Unites States—might have been considered "terrorists" by today's standards, which suggests the standards for applying the label are not consistent. |
|
|
** Resistance movement during World War II. Some historians even claim that resistance in Poland used biological weapons. |
|
|
** All forms of ] which exposed ] to diseases they had no immunity to, especially if they were vaguely aware they were doing it. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Legends === |
|
|
"As legend has it..." is often a screen for lazy research or bogus invented "legends" (some of which are harmless in intention). Pin down your source: "An early legend in Favola's life of St. Sancta..." etc. Unattributed passive voice is a slippery substitute for "legends": "Dumbo is thought to have..." This is a special case of ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Fundamentalist === |
|
|
Originally, the word meant "one who rejects ritual and follows the fundamentals (main 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 the limits of reasonableness, or to use a more specific description. On the other hand, if a group is described by another person or group as fundamentalist, then that should be stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Hard and Far === |
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
As an example: ]'s ] party is described by almost all commentators outside of the party as being "far right", but denies this qualification. This has to be documented as such in the article of that party. However, 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bad Form == |
|
|
=== Controversy === |
|
|
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 a separate section. |
|
|
|
|
|
==="Amusingly" / "Ironically"=== |
|
|
These words are often used as declarations, in the context of a quote by a historical figure, or as an observation on the perceived humour or irony of a historical consequence. In both cases they tend strongly to be a statement of opinion rather than of objective fact; in the former case, ''who'' is amused? And in the latter case, ''how'' is the statement or event ironic? Was the humour or irony intentional? Was it perceived as amusing or ironic at the time, or only in retrospect? All of these factors must be borne in mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
==="Claim"=== |
|
|
The word "claim" often replaces "say" to make for a very biased sentence. Think of the example: |
|
|
::George Bush claimed that the Iraq government was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. |
|
|
The truth of the sentence can be disputed for ages, but one simple change makes everyone agree: |
|
|
::George Bush said that the Iraq government was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. |
|
|
|
|
|
==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 ] for a more comprehensive list, with their respective meanings. |
|
|
|
|
|
== See also == |
|
|
* ] especially ]. |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|