Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:51, 4 July 2014 editMiddle 8 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users8,217 edits →"Characterize", "describe": r← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:28, 5 July 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,793 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 4) (botNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 4		\|counter = 5
	\|algo = old(30d)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive %(counter)d
Line 37:		Line 37:
	*]		*]
	*]		*]

	== Request edit in Unsupported attributions section ==
	The second phrase: I subjectively think "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis." could be improved by writing instead "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority''', yet without''' substantial basis.". This view is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. But it's worth reading (in my subjective opinion).] (]) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

	:I've been meaning to address ]'s change , and this is because her change is bit redundant to the second sentence, the sentence the IP cited above. ] (]) 01:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

	I kind of prefer Lisa's edit, as it is somewhat easier to understand. It's kind of redundant, yes. Also, I'd kind of prefer "Weasel words are statements..." over the current "Weasel words are words...".
	>.< This needs more attention. Hopefully this other reply will do the trick. ] (]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

	:As you might have seen, Lisa your request. As for the rest of what you want changed, if no one watching this page objects soon, I suggest you be ] and make the changes yourself. ] (]) 02:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

	== Watergate changed to Contragate ==

	I assume this is clearly the correct thing to do, but in case someone doesn't get it. "Watergate" is not an example of the "-gate" suffix being used to label a scandal. It's the original name of the scandal itself, and its notoriety led to "-gate" becoming the suffix it is today.

	As such, it is ''impossible'' for "Watergate" to be used as an example of a case where widespread usage has eliminated the contentiousness of referring to what happened as a "scandal". "Contragate" seems to be the best known scandal with a genuine "-gate" suffix. ] (]) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	:No, it's both the name of a building and the name of a scandal that occurred in that building. It's the only appropriate example here, because it's the only X-gate that's undeniably the name of a scandal and in wide use. You seem to be bothered that "-gate" isn't a suffix in "Watergate" because it's not a lexical unit as it is in e.g. "Contragate." That's not a problem for a number of reasons. One, it can be seen as a back-formation so that it is actually a suffix in Watergate. Two, it's irrelevant whether "-gate" is a suffix in "Watergate." The example gets the point across so people won't do the bad thing. "Contragate" is arguably but not definitively a good example here.— ] (]) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	::Watergate is definitively not an example. Granted your linguistic reinterpretation, perhaps one that younger readers might take for granted, it is still a historical falsity, and as such, "Watergate" would at best be a very poor example. The history is quite relevant, because the point supposed to be made by the example is lost simply because "Watergate" was ''born'' as the neutral name for the scandal. No one in his right mind could ever think there's something perhaps loaded about using "Watergate" that NPOV demands we avoid.

	::In other words, I'm not really bothered by the technicality that this "-gate" is not a suffix—I'm quite open to professional linguists making the call either way. I am bothered by the fact that it can never really be interpreted as cryptic POV-pushing, rendering the admonition moot. In contrast, we want readers to know that "Contragate" can be permitted because the fact that it's a scandal is quite neutral. "Watergate" does not need MOS permission, so to speak.

	::The relevant article is titled ], and while I'm here I'm wondering, why the n-dash instead of a hyphen, and isn't "affair" a weasel word here? It's possible the title is some kind of RS consensus, but as the article makes clear, it most definitely was a scandal. So far as this discussion goes, the point we would be making (if the name "Contragate" is our example) is that it is not excluded as POV-pushing, and it can certainly be used in passing in other articles (as it is), but the choice is made on other criteria. ] (]) 15:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	:::The history of the word is irrelevant to its meaning as history has no place in semantics. As of now in reality, "Watergate" is the only uncontroversial example of a scandal ending in "-gate." Maybe we would be better off more strongly discouraging the unattributed use of the construction entirely except for the case of Watergate? E.g. {{xt\|Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt.}} --> {{xt\|Use these in articles only with in-text attribution except in reference to Watergate.}} That might solve all our problems at once?— ] (]) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	::::The history is extremely relevant to those of us who remember the relevant history. My understanding of "Watergate", both the word and the event, is strongly based on my memory of the scandal as it unfolded, and probably has a lot of non-overlap to those whom it is simply some oddball minor section in their high school history book, or to non-Americans who think of it as the answer to a trivia question about the etymology of the "-gate" suffix.

	::::Where the word will end up a fifty to a hundred years from now, I have no idea. Your vision that its history will be erased from its meaning is probably correct. But we're not talking about the future. We're talking about today.

	::::Moreover, we don't rely on zero-controversy, but on reliably-sourced-lack-of-controversy. The editors of ] have apparently not had a controversy about whether it was a scandal or not, so by WP standards, it ''was'' a scandal. Besides, Watergate itself is not so 100% free of controversy as you imply. For what it's worth, I'm a fan of '']''.

	::::Your suggestion that perhaps we can agree to ban "-gate" on Misplaced Pages except for "Watergate" is ridiculous. The point here is to warn editors that certain words, phrases, and the like could involve cryptic POV-pushing, and we don't do that.

	::::The only acceptable examples are events that clearly concern something that does look like POV-pushing—perhaps indeed something that was such when first used—but which widespread usage have normalized as a standard name. "Watergate" fails this, "Contragate" does not. Moreover, it should be as famous as possible. ] fails this. ] (]) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	:::::I remember the history perfectly well, having been glued to the TV pretty much 24/7 for much of 1974 watching it unfold. The word has already ended up where I claim it has. I didn't just make that up, I looked it up in the dictionary, which (OED) says: {{xt\|Used attrib. and absol. with reference to the burglary of the Watergate building in 1972 and the circumstances leading to the resignation of President R. M. Nixon in 1974. Also transf., denoting a political or commercial scandal on a large scale.}} We're talking about the "Also transf." part of the definition. The "-gate" combined form means {{xt\|A terminal element denoting an actual or alleged scandal (and usually an attempted cover-up), in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972.}} Obviously the Watergate scandal of 1972 is in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972, is it not? Anyway, according to the dictionary, Watergate is an example "which widespread usage normalized as a standard name." So why not use it? It's the most clear example, and the only one which doesn't require sourcing to show that it's in widespread use. Perhaps our situation here is analogous to that in ], where, rather than changing a super-clear metaphor all around in order to conform to historical accuracy, editors added a note explaining that even though some of the claims in the essay were historically inaccurate the essay makes its point more clearly by ignoring this fact: ].— ] (]) 16:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	::::::You say ''Anyway, according to the dictionary, Watergate is an example "which widespread usage normalized as a standard name."'' Huh??? The dictionary does not say this whatsoever. "Watergate" was the standard name from the beginning, and the dictionary has no choice but to list this exact word, and anyone writing about the topic on Misplaced Pages has no choice but to use this exact word. POV-pushing would be something like "Son of Checkers", which they allow on the Triki Diki Wiki, but not here. The dictionary does not say or imply that there was some other "neutral" name that got edged out by the loaded term "Watergate" which today nobody thinks of as POV-pushing. It wasn't "normalized" because it was never "abnormal" usage in the first place.

	::::::Really, I have absolutely no idea of what argument you are trying to make anymore. For someone who begins the argument with a rude "Polysemy, how does that work?" to end up with Ayn Rand style "A is A" babbling, well, you've lost me. As it is, your initial claim of polysemy regarding "Watergate" was frankly a confession that it's a bad example: we ''don't'' want ambiguity in our advice.

	::::::You then ask: ''So why not use it?'' Because it is not an example of what the MOS point is here: a term that looks like POV-pushing but isn't. "Watergate" doesn't look like POV-pushing. You go on: ''It's the most clear example, and the only one which doesn't require sourcing to show that it's in widespread use.'' Except it doesn't illustrate the point here whatsoever. I looked at it earlier today, and did a double-take, a great big "huh???"

	::::::We can get away with ]'s simplifications because the false claim and the corrected claim are both very very well-known. That is, the false history is its own well-established meme and stands on its own. If there was a WP essay based on George Washington chopping down that cherry tree, or ], sure! But it is not "well-known" that Watergate is a possibly biased choice of a name for the scandal that forced Nixon to resign, so the comparison is pointless. ] (]) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	:::::::Here's the argument I'm trying to make: the MOS currently says "{{xt\|The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt.}}" I think "Watergate" is an example of this. You don't. The only possible objection I can see is that "-gate" is not a suffix in "Watergate" but you say that's not your problem with it. According to the dictionary, "-gate" means {{xt\|A terminal element denoting an actual or alleged scandal (and usually an attempted cover-up), in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972.}} How in the world is Watergate not an example of this? As a side note, maybe we should change the word "suffix" on the page, because "-gate" isn't exactly a suffix in all uses of the term, e.g. "Watergate."— ] (]) 18:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	::::::::My objection is primarily nobody would ever think of "asking permission" to call the scandal "Watergate" on WP, because "Watergate" is the ] "-gate". And not just the holotype, but more importantly, everyone ''knows'' this fact (or at least, is supposed to know this). This MOS section is about when to allow "-gate". Using words/phrases constructed from the suffix could be contentious, and the permit comes about if usage has decided the issue. In contrast, using words/phrases born with the suffix cannot be contentious, and don't need permission. Using the second kind of word is not sending the intended first-kind-of-word message. (Genuine suffix or doppelgänger: interesting, maybe, but a distraction.)

	::::::::For example, would there be a question about a contemporary politician named "Woodgate" getting into hot water, and the resulting issue, not clearly a scandal, gets named "Woodgate"? Of course not! Calling it "Woodgategate" would be contentious. I'm saying the same applies to "Watergate".

	::::::::Referring to current issues, the point of this MOS is to pre-emptively ban "Benghazigate", a term that pre-judges the 2012 tragedy as a scandal regarding Obama and Clinton, something that reliable sources haven't agreed to. It allows "Bridgegate", because sources have agreed that that cockup was a scandal. It disallows "Christiegate"—a word out there—since the scandal is, according to reliable sources, only near Christie. Even though language doesn't have to respect those distances, and everybody knows such use today means "scandal mumblemumble Christie", we notice that it is pre-loaded with contentious prejudice (that it's also BLP issue is a side matter, it's contentious regarding ''something'') and ban it. Notice that both "Bridgegate" and "Christiegate" are neologisms. Over time, "Christiegate" could become a standard term, even if no new heads go rolling, and we would no longer ban it. (For example, if Christie runs for president, the most offensive term will automatically get a lot of play.)

	::::::::Despite appearances, Christie was not involved with .

	::::::::As another prominent example, ] was a non-scandal contentiously portrayed by the fringe as a scandal. So far as I can tell, that name has passed into common usage, and the consensus refusal to use that name for the page is ''technically'' incorrect.

	::::::::As an example, "Watergate" doesn't come with any inherent contention that needs to be addressed. ] (]) 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

	:::::::::That's quite cogent, except for the fact that "Watergate" in the sense of a scandal is a neologism as well, as is "-gate" itself. All examples of this construction will therefore be neologisms as well, so neologismicity is irrelevant. The trouble is that you're looking for an example that used to be contentious but somehow no longer is too contentious, but is just contentious enough to get the point across? The problem I see is that "Watergate" is in the dictionary with its post-1972 meaning, but none of the others, including "contragate," seem to be. So what are we using to judge the degree to which an X-gate has been accepted into the language if not its appearance in a dictionary? As far as both the OED and MW are concerned, both "contragate" and "Benghazigate" are on a par; neither is listed. They're both supposed to be decipherable from the definition of "-gate." Why is it you don't think it's a good idea to ban all unattributed use of this construction except for "Watergate"? Are there non-redirects which use it? Obviously the standard for redirects is far, far lower than the standard for use in Misplaced Pages's voice in actual articles.— ] (]) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}} One busy day and a half of grading later ...

	Neither "Watergate" nor "-gate" are neologisms, so your remarks make little sense. They are established parts of the English language, and pretty much universally understood. Worse, you have been obsessing with dictionaries in a completely irrelevant manner. Dictionaries have their own agendas, and you are letting those agendas direct your arguments. For example, dictionaries—even the OED—hold back terms that are floating around. See "]" for my favorite example.

	This MOS entry is about the use of certain potentially contentious words in WP. The words are chosen by WP editors, with the presumed goal of communicating to WP readers. Among the expectations is fluency in the writing so that the reading goes down clearly and unambiguously. We do not have to wait for dictionaries to catch up. Mutual understanding is the requirement. There is probably not one U.S. reader who does not instantly understand "Benghazigate", and I'm pretty sure most non-Americans get it too. Nowhere is there a WP requirement that language be restricted to words that have made it into at least one major dictionary. In this case, "-gate" is in every dictionary, and the idea that WP is limited to the dozen or so X-gates that are listed in at least one major dictionary is nonsense.

	The OED lists "Irangate", for example, and it cites a British newspaper. I suspect the Iran aspect was recognizable to the British but not anything regarding the Contras, but I do not know. I don't think the term ever caught on here in the US. (And if Contragate never caught on overseas, I'll certainly agree it's a poor exemplar for WP on ''those'' grounds.)

	Moreover, dictionaries for the most part keep their distance from proper nouns. "Watergate" has become not just the name for a certain scandal, but a term for any career-ending political scandal, so on those grounds it makes it into the dictionary. The only other X-gates I see in dictionaries are examples illustrating "-gate" itself, since no other scandal has entered the language that completely. "Waterloo" has similarly entered the language beyond the name of a town and battle and song. (Too bad "-loo" didn't catch on.) Few battles enter the dictionary, but we don't need an MOS permit to use them. Meanwhile, the MOS isn't requiring a "-gate" word to have achieved this level of language penetration. It is simply requiring that it reach a level where its use isn't contentious, as verified by widespread usage.

	Actually, the description as written needs to be changed. "Benghazi-gate" ''is'' widely used, as a quick Google search reveals (you already know who uses it, of course, pre-emptive proof that the term is contentious). Yet the ] article does not mention the word, even as an alternative name, and there is an extraordinarily stupidly pleonastic ] redirect, from something that began as a short-lived obviously POV-pushing article. (Nothing links to it; I think it should just be deleted, or at least moved to Benghazigate.) The term pretty much does not belong on WP, because it is inherently contentious and POV-pushing. That's the message of this MOS. Dictionaries listing it or not listing it are completely irrelevant: its meaning is completely clear, so while at the level of its literal meaning, "Benghazigate" is acceptable, at the higher level of what the ''real'' meaning of the word is, the word is unacceptable.

	And this is another part of the message that I believe is not illustrated by "Watergate". Because Watergate is in the language for uses having nothing to with the actual scandal, so many uses, in fact, that it had to be contracted into a suffix, it fails to illustrate our concerns with X-gate in general.

	Let me introduce an example, never before seen in the English language, yet I think every reader will know ''exactly'' what I mean: '''Sologate'''. I believe it's perfectly clear I'm referring to ], if not, it would be clear in any relevant context. We might oppose this usage as a ridiculous neologism, but that's not the point of this section of the MOS. No, our concern is that such a term prejudges Lucas and his artistic taste and his attitude to his fans and so on, and we don't do that on WP. Of course, "Han shot first" also makes potentially contentious judgments (not as strongly, and not actually ''saying'' "scandal"), but it ''has'' become the phrase—I'm assuming the relevant editors have reached a consensus from reliable sources (not dictionaries!) on this—and so in this case the MOS says we give in and allow the contentious phrase. (Note too the article uses "controversial" right away, despite our MOS warnings. It seems acceptable: the article spells out the controversy.)

	I'm sorry this has run on so long, but you have been focusing on dictionaries and neologisms, which are mostly irrelevant to the issues here. ] (]) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

	=="Reform"==
	Is it pov to refer to a political movement as "reform." For example, I may wish to change a number of basic Misplaced Pages policies. So I call them "Misplaced Pages reform" because it suits my agenda (but maybe not yours :)! Somehow, this (theoretical movement along with other editors with their own agendas) makes it into the encyclopedia. Is it proper to term it "Misplaced Pages reform?" ] (]) 19:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


	== Lazy enhancement words ==		== Lazy enhancement words ==

Revision as of 00:28, 5 July 2014

Shortcuts

Archives of this page

Text has been copied from:

See also related discussions and archives:

Lazy enhancement words

(To be placed under the Expressions that lack precision section)

Lazy enhancement words

Shortcuts

Template:Quote box4 Intensifiers like very (or not very, etc.) used to "magnify" the following word should together be replaced with an appropriate single-word verb, adjective, or adverb.

Shortcuts

Template:Quote box4 Quantifiers like several, some, many, few can be imprecisely interpreted, both in value and in POV. It's preferable when possible to give a precise numerical value ("99 bottles of beer"), a range ("5-6 days"), or an upper/lower limit ("over 15 members", "nearly 50 speeches"), or just leave off the quantifier completely ("has written several articles about" -> "has authored articles about").

Discussion

I boldly added this. Someone reverted it within seconds screaming "WP:CONSENSUS! WP:CONSENSUS!". I think it reflects straightforward, good practices that are taught commonly in writing classes. Now I leave it here until someone cares to add a version back. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted Netoholic, as seen here and here, and as further addressed on my talk page. And like I told him: His addition used authoritative language for what is a guideline, and he even suggested that editors should avoid use of the word several, despite it often being quite appropriate to use the word several, such as when avoiding a WP:Linkfarm of names. The "several, some, many, few" topic he added is very much already covered by the WP:Weasel words portion of the guideline. So if his elaboration on that aspect belongs anywhere on that page, it's in that section. And like Template:Who states: "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague." Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"topic he added is very much already covered" > "topic he added is already extensively|adequately|substantially covered". -- Netoholic @ 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Several" can always be replaced with either a more precise numerical value or eliminated by creative rephrasing (as in the examples). The big problem with "several" is it tends to be borderline original research (because it is supplied by the estimations of the editor), can be interpreted by the reader in a subjective way, and is useless as to the serious researcher referring to Misplaced Pages who needs more precision. You can avoid a WP:Linkfarm by either find a source that gives a numerical value or estimate, or by rephrasing to avoid any "guess" word like several. There is some overlap with WP:Weasel words, but that is about how phrases can infer a bias... WP:LAZY is meant to be about precision. Lastly, I don't understand the relevance of Template:Who. If that sentiment is a Style guideline that you think WP should follow, then why is it on an obscure template documentation page? -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I just told you here, keep the grammar lessons to yourself. Almost every "grammar expert" I encounter on Misplaced Pages needs quite a few grammar lessons before attempting to teach anyone on the topic. Nice of you to point out the "extensively covered" option, though, given how much I've used that wording in Misplaced Pages debates.

As for the rest: Nope, I don't see a big problem with "several"...if people use it correctly. WP:Linkfarm is often best avoided by using words such as several or many. Template:Who is relevant because it specifically addresses the type of words you are looking to discourage; it states why those words may be appropriate and why matters cannot always be worded as precisely as you would like. The WP:Weasel words section, for example, points to Template:By whom. Flyer22 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Almost every "grammar expert" I encounter on Misplaced Pages needs copious|more|further|extensive grammar lessons before attempting" -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean no insult in replying with alternative grammar, I just want to illustrate to readers of this proposal how engaging the language can be. Here's another example from a recent cleanup. The guideline I propose is just that, a guideline. People can ignore it if it makes sense in context, but maybe it'll inspire them to use the vast treasures of the language and replace editor guess-timations with precision. The intent is to make the language used in articles better. "Several" is one of the most common lazy words out there and used as a "filler". If you observe where its used, you can deeply feel the laziness and emptiness from it. Its a difficult habit to break, but worthwhile. -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean "no insult in replying with alternative grammar." Sure, you don't. You simply mean to condescend and to assert the superiority you clearly think you have. You know very well that you are patronizing and that it doesn't help a thing, other than your ego, to nitpick at others' grammar during a discussion about improving a guideline, even if a guideline about grammar. I don't tolerate passive-aggressive WP:Dick behavior. So go ahead and save it for others at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"You're knowledgeable|conscious|cognizant that you are patronizing" --Netoholic @ 13:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you've crossed the line from discussion into personal attacks. Good day. --Netoholic @ 13:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: More reverts on this matter are here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion might benefit from an outside opinion.

I don't understand where the proposal relating to intensifiers is coming from. They're used all the time and they make perfectly good sentences (sorry, I couldn't think of a single adjective that would properly capture the sense of "perfectly good"). The source given in support of this idea actually only covers the word "very", and it is from a creative writing blog, so not necessarily a very reliable guide to what we should do on WP (sorry, again, I don't know what "very reliable" would be as a single word - it's harder than you might think, isn't it?).

The second proposal is easier to understand, but I'm not very sure ("Certain"! This one's "certain", isn't it? Did I get it right?) about it all the same. If a precise (or approximate) number is known, then it would be better give that. But, then again, I'm not sure most editors need telling this. We tend to use vague quantifiers when they are all we have, and you can often (sorry, I mean "between 25 and 35 percent of the time") make a phrase less precise, or even inaccurate, by removing one. For example, "Many people eat in restaurants" may be preferable to "People eat in restaurants", because the latter might be taken to mean that all people eat in restaurants, or that people in general do so, neither of which is what is intended. Unless you can get your hands on a survey, I don't think there's an easy way around this. Formerip (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most (but not all) intensifiers can be safely omitted for cleaner language and stronger style. The usual best advice is to simply remove them when not needed, rather than hunt around for a more complicated replacement synonym. She was very committed becomes She was committed without problem. That doesn't mean we should advise an explicit ban on their use and we don't need to add these proposals. I find singling out the simplest and most basic of words as "words to watch" an unhelpful addition to the guideline. Telling people not to use many seems like a complete non-starter to me. (Today's featured article uses many without controversy or jarring stylistic effect.) I think cases of vague language like somewhat are already covered under WP:ALLEGED and instances of undue emphatic words are already covered under the principle of WP:OPED which is about giving undue emphasis not found in sources. I'm not convinced these proposals would end more talk page debates than cause more trivial ones (Of the painful type The MOS says we can't use the word "few").__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The fewer Strunk and White style recommendations, the better. Choor monster (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Formerip - "perfectly good" is fine in your usage, as "perfect" and "good" are differently defined. "Many people eat in restaurants" could perhaps be "People generally eat at restaurants" or flip the order "Restaurants are regularly patronized" (making "people" implied with the use of patronized). Also, this guideline could inspire editors to leave out obvious or redundant filler statements entirely. Aspects of this guideline do overlap with the areas you mentioned, but those are policy-related and regard bias, this guideline is focused on precision of speech. A little overlap isn't bad. Also, this isn't the final version, suggestions for improvement are welcome and we can add in cross-references to and from the bias policies. ADDED: took a stab at removing quantifiers from the FA you mentioned. I was impressed that there was only one use of "very" already... seems that people follow that style point commonly. I didn't do a run-through for all the quantifiers (like "some"). -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with what you are saying here. Firstly, your proposed solutions to the problem of "Many people eat in restaurants" do not follow the advice you set out above, which is simply to leave off the quantifier. So, at the very least, your proposal needs amending to something like: "...avoid the quantifier by whatever means you can think of".

Second problem is that neither of your proposed solutions has the same meaning as "Many people eat in restaurants". I would say that it is true that many people eat in restaurants. But to say they generally do so is a different proposition and it is false, in my experience, because in reality most of them do so only occasionally. To say that restaurants are regularly patronised by people (not, BTW how awkward the phrasing is) is also a different proposition. They might easily be regularly patronised by only a tiny minority of the general population. This problem is not necessarily fatal because, if we try a bit harder, maybe we can think of a way of doing it without changing the meaning. But it highlights the problem that bad style advice can have the effect that people end up writing less precisely.

The real problem is that the alternative versions, even ignoring the fact that they don't mean the same thing, are in no way an improvement. They are no less vague, no more grammatical and certainly not any stylistically better. So what was the point of the advice? I actually can't think of any way in which "Most people eat in restaurants" can be improved.

The same thing goes for the "use a single adjective rule". Apart from the fact that it is only sometimes possible, it's not an appropriate guide to writing an encylopaedia. It's great for a high school writing class, because it will encouraged varied, vivid and emotive language. But that's not what we want from editors. It is perfectly fine for us to say that the Empire State Building is "very tall" (can you explain to me why it might not be). We have absolutely no need to be digging out our thesauruses and coming up with words like "gargantuan" or "colossal". Formerip (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the best solution to "Many people eat in restaurants" would be something like "A 2009 survey conducted by the Restaurant Owners Association found that 84% of people visit restaurants yearly". This guideline would encourage people to go out and find reliable sources rather than settle for ambiguous quantifiers. Something being called "very tall" demands the response compared to what and especially demands an objective measurement. If those things can't be identified, then at least we can strive to use more variety in our language than "very". --Netoholic @ 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, being specific or making comparisons is a good think to do if there is sourcing available that allows us to do that. But, often, there won't be. If the source says "Many accountants still use calculators" or "Rooftop swimming pools are unsuitable for very tall buildings", there's no stylistic need to modify the language in the source, and every reason to think it would be poor advice. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Does "many accountants" mean 5 or 5% or 90%? Does "very tall building" mean a skyscraper or a 10 story apartment building? In those cases, then, the article should quote the source exactly as written. To do otherwise is to plagiarize their wording, or worse, use alternate words which change the meaning in a misleading way. This guideline would be called in to prevent that, and to encourage the discovery of objective sources which give concrete information. Thats the intent behind "words to avoid". -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against your own proposal. If we should quote the source exactly as written and avoid changing the meaning, and the source says "many" or "very", then surely that means we should say "many" or "very" (i.e. they are not words to avoid at all)? Formerip (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Subtle difference. See #Very has no place in WP unless quoted. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you made me regret using a specific example. Those changes you made are not all examples of improved style. You changed There are several guard stations and work camps throughout the forest. to Guard stations and work camps dot the forest. Dot the forest? You changed "too many restrictions" to "undue restrictions" which is a change of sense; "too many" means "more than needed in quantity" not that all restrictions are not due. A headscratcher that directly undermines your advice is where you replaced There are many trails throughout the forest with There are abundant trails throughout the forest. I don't think we should have MOS guidelines asking people to specifically avoid "many" just because some people prefer the word "abundant". Some of your deletions were improvements, but we shouldn't ask people to wrestle sentences away from common words to match the example of other changes there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it again, I see you've changed "several" to "repeated". That kinds of sums up why this isn't a "words to watch" scenario. There's no functional difference in implication, style, or ease of understanding between "several" and "repeated". They both represent an unknown quantity more than one, they're equally precise, equally understandable. MOS shouldn't discourage words that aren't being used incorrectly in the first place. There's also such a thing as the danger of asking for false precision not found in the sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The changes I made were in fitting with the sources I found, perhaps "an undue amount of restrictions" might also work. "Several" is a vague number, repeated indicates that they've tried the same thing over and over (which they have). The words I chose seem appropriately precise and result in a more varied and interesting voice to the article. There is also a more common danger of editors using quantifiers to give false estimations (a kind of misleading precision) that aren't found in sources. For example, someone editing an article about a public speaker might citations of events spanning many years. The editor might be tempted to say "Speaker has made several speeches" - that editor is assigning a quantifier that isn't found in any one source, but rather using a word that is the result of his own research based on his knowledge after gathering a list of instances. The word "several" in that context also is imprecise (he could say "Speaker has spoken over 20 times..." or he could/should just leave out the quantifier completely. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a point you're missing here. "Repeated" is just as vague about quantity as "several". "Many" is just as vague about quantity as "abundant". You're not changing the level of precision. Not that you even should in those cases. It's okay to not give a precise number if the source doesn't. If a source says that a subject has been on many radio programs, there is nothing sinister about using the word "many" in paraphrase. There's no reason to encourage people to shun a particular word in favor of an identically synonymous word to fill the same function in the sentence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No I absolutely get your point but you don't get mine. It would be best if we had a source that said how many re-population attempts their were, instead of "several/repeated". It would be best if we had a specific number to replace "many/abundant" with. This is why we should have a guideline that says "avoid these words"... to push people into finding sources and away from the default laziness of "very" and "many"... but if they are in a corner and must use a word, they should use one that evokes the sources they do have, quoting them if necessary. There's definitely no proper use of the word "very" at all. --Netoholic @ 02:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe okay as a general aspiration, but it sounds like you're trying to advise "avoid not knowing things" or "avoid all words that aren't numbers" rather than "avoid these words". Misplaced Pages covers too many things to demand that people avoid the simple word "many". In fact, we often summarize things, per WP:INFO. This is a Manual of Style set of guidelines about words that could cause significant problems when used incorrectly. "Very" while often needless, is "very" unlikely to cause an "actual" problem beyond momentary style irritation. It's one of the least provocative ways of over-emphasizing (which is already covered by WP:EDIT) If more people followed your proposals wholesale, we'd have more problems with false precision (including stale/outdated trivial numbers in article text, there only to look like we're not being "vague"). There are too many situations where those words are encouraged to blanket advise against them.
On a side note, you have that quote misattributed to Mark Twain. It was most probably from William Allen White, the Sage of Emporia.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why "Words to avoid" has to be only limited to "words that could cause significant problems". A manual of style is more than just "avoiding problems", it there to promote consistency and accuracy by using best practices. --Netoholic @ 04:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Very has no place in WP unless quoted

Rooftop swimming pools are unsuitable for very tall buildings.

If the source we're using for the above phrase says "very tall" in it, we want to avoid direct plagiarism (since we're otherwise using the exact words from the article without proper indication), so then we should be saying:

Rooftop swimming pools are "unsuitable for very tall buildings" according to ''Rooftop Pools Magazine''.

But what if the source does not use "very tall" but gives a height measurement or comparison or doesn't give a clear indication? We need our editors to avoid putting arbitrarily lazy intensifiers like "very" into the articles, since the resulting statement can never be objective, and so cannot be verifiable. "Very" has no place in our encyclopedia unless we're doing a direct quote. All other uses are editor interpretation of sources (OR or SYNTH) by applying an imprecise and lazy intensifier. If anyone can think of a legitimate use of the intensifier "very" when the sources do not also use that word, let's discuss. -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very much on board with this! :) "Very" seems like a information cop-out. The editor has no idea about what is tall and what isn't, nor has figures supporting same. I don't really care for quotes unless mandatory. Again, it seems like the supposedly WP:RS is copping out with lack of data. And all WP:RS are eventually unusable in various places. It's a human failing and (therefore) very common! Student7 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported attributions - again

The section on unsupported attributions leaps straight into, and is pretty much confined to, a discussion on 'weasel words'. Weasel words are not a necessary ingredient of unsupported attributions, nor is the use of weasel words confined to unsupported attributions. Perhaps a longer explanation, with a paragrapgh on weasel words as a type or example?

There is also a need to clarify the definition of weasel words. In particular, the stipulation: "when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" needs to be clear that the claim referred to is the claim of authority, otherwise it leads to the possibility that: "Some observers state that 14.265% of cats (Felis Catus) are entirely black" is OK, because the (second) claim in the sentence is neither vague nor ambiguous.

Finally, all of the other sections in the article use examples of weasel words/wording.

Wayne 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Battle with"/"suffering from"

Usually these two words/phrases or some variation thereof are used to describe a person's death from a disease such as cancer or something of the sort. Would these words be considered neutral? Connormah (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is covered briefly at Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language. Try simple language: Alice retired due to complications of congestive heart failure. Bill has bursitis. Chris was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2013. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Battle with" pretty much always sounds tabloidy, IMO, and should be avoided. "Suffer from" may be acceptable depending on context. We should normally avoid using it with reference to disabilities and we should consider whether it might be misleading (not everyone who gets cancer physically suffers to a great degree because of it, although they might suffer a bit due to the treatment). I don't see anything wrong with saying, for example, "Dick Cheney suffered a heart attack in 2000", because it's not really debatable whether this is an accurate or fair characterisation. On the other hand, I can't think of a case where using a suitable alternative to "suffered" would make the content poorer, so avoid in case of doubt. Formerip (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both responders. The "suffering from" is an Appeal to pity. Officially we are not (in the example) trying to get our audience to "pity" Cheney. (I use both phrases in everyday language of course! But I'm not a walking encyclopedia! And I AM trying to get my audience to sympathize with the subject of my conversation! :) Student7 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. "Suffering" is pitiful, and "battling" is noble. "Having" is unassumptive. Dick Cheney had a heart attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

"Characterize", "describe"

"Stated" is a universally-agreed-upon neutral verb, but we use it so much that prose can suffer, so neutral synonyms are desirable. When somebody states that "X is like Y", I assume it's also neutral to say they're "describing" X as Y, or "characerizing" X as Y. Does either of these seem problematic? (Context: this was reverted, which surprised me. But the topic area is highly fraught.) Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Characterize" is not strictly a synonym for "describe". To characterize means to "define the character or identity of, to mark, distinguish; to be typical or characteristic" (OED). Thus it's a bit less direct than describe/call. Alexbrn 10:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A good synonym for "characterize" would be "demarcate", which is exactly what people do when they call something pseudoscience, which is why I thought it was a decent choice. Oxforddictionaries.com (OED's cousin) defines "describe" as "Give an account in words of (someone or something), including all the relevant characteristics, qualities, or events", and defines "characterize" as "Describe the distinctive nature or features of", so they're pretty close. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Demarcation is a different thing again: setting the dividing line between things. Alexbrn 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't be saying "synonym" when I mean "cousin". "Characterize" isn't the same thing as "describe", but a "word to avoid" in this context? There's a sense of "less direct", but it's also more specific. It seems like a good choice, because it's got some.... characteristics in common with "demarcation". But I guess it seems too close to hedging and therefore not neutral. "Described" is probably better, and I think it's better than "stated".--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 23:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Official", "Officially"

I've come across either of these words a few times, particularly in reference to the release of a song or music video. For example, take a look at this excerpt from the article about a song called "In Your Words" by Rebecca Black:

Filming for the video was finished in October 2012, and behind-the-scenes photos for the video were released less than a week after the video was done shooting. A teaser of the video was uploaded on November 9, 2012, and the video was officially released the same day as the single.

In that context at least, I'd consider the word official (or officially) as an adjective (or adverb) a peacock term, though I don't see the word explicitly listed there. The word does have other meanings different from this context (e.g., government official, in which case it's a noun). Official supposedly denotes "authenticity", but from the over-use I've seen, the meaning has become obscured. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=refs> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=refs}} template (see the help page).