Misplaced Pages

A point of view may be implied by using loaded synonyms for the verb to say. For example, to write that X noted, reported, or observed something can imply that X was correct to note, report, or observe it. Revealed, pointed out, exposed, and surmised carry similar dangers. Said, wrote, argued and stated usually express no point of view; according to can be used in the same way.

X claimed should generally be avoided, because it raises a question, particularly after a factual statement; for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a later statement claimed he was not a racist."

Admit, confess, and deny should be used judiciously, particularly of living persons, because they can convey guilt. For example, "Supervisors said they knew nothing about the incident" is better than "Supervisors denied all knowledge of the incident," which hints that perhaps they really did know something.

Puffery

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Misplaced Pages contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

Peacock example:

Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and the greatest songwriter of all time.

Just the facts:

Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had already been covered by hundreds of other artists.

Expressions of doubt

WP:ALLEGED

Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Negative labels

WP:LABEL

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

"The Peoples Temple is a cult."
"The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
"Pedophilia is a sexual perversion."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

"The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X, Y, and Z."
"The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."
"Pedophilia is a paraphilia."

Labels such as scandalous and affair can promote a contentious point of view. The suffix -gate is often used in journalism to refer to a controversial episode. Use these in articles only when they are widely used to characterize the issue, with in-text attribution if in doubt.

Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?

The terms "extremist", "terrorist", and "freedom fighter" are particularly contentious labels because they often carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

When replacing one of these labels with a less controversial one, the word to be used should be chosen on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the words' ambiguity, appropriateness, and specificity with respect to the context. Factual descriptions such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage-taker, kidnapper, and suicide bomber are often suitable as replacements. Assassin may in some circumstances be appropriate, but that word can also reflect a non-neutral point of view (hence such euphemisms as targeted killing). Other words to consider using, but which may also reflect a non-neutral point of view, are insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, and militant.

When an article refers to the general concept of terrorism, extremism, or freedom fighting, those terms may generally be used (e.g., in the article Freedom fighter, the article on a scholar who studies extremism, or articles concerned with general anti-terrorism organizations such as Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch). Nonetheless, care must be taken in these articles when applying the label of terrorist, extremist, or freedom fighter to a specific person, group, or event.

Editorializing

The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course not only suggest a point of view, they are often nothing but excess verbiage. Misplaced Pages should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

Unsupported attributions

These phrases present the appearance of support for statements but deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Misplaced Pages contributors. They may pad out sentences without conveying any useful information, and they may disguise a non-neutral point of view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

Euphemisms

WP:EUPHEMISM

The word died is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms such as resting place: dead people aren't resting. Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous. Expressions such as collateral damage and ethnic cleansing mask violence in clinical terms. If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that; living with is a verbose softener.

Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal here is to express things as clearly and directly as possible, while not causing offense when it is unnecessary. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The National Federation of the Blind opposes terms such as visually impaired and sightless in favor of the straightforward blind, when that is the fact. Similarly, the group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the plain phrase blind people.

Clichés