Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

Is "hate group" covered by MOS:LABEL?

[edit]

Unlike the thread above, this one is not listed here, but I feel it matches what the policy describes. I am inclined to think so, because it is utterly subjective, far more than extremist which is listed here, and an opinion statement, and we should avoid saying opinions in wikivoice. Of course, it can be attributed as per MOS:LABEL - but do others agree it would be a phrase to avoid in Wikivoice per MOS:LABEL? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should “fake news” be added to Words to watch?

[edit]

I would like to propose considering “fake news” (and/or, where relevant, “fake” when applied as a label to organizations) as a value-laden label under MOS:LABEL.

The term is often used subjectively and inconsistently in sources, and can function as a contentious classification rather than a neutral description. Adding guidance here could help ensure it is used with appropriate attribution and in line with WP:NPOV.

Thoughts? N2225Lba2 (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This term is also being discussed in RfC: Criteria for Inclusion in List of fake news websites. I weakly oppose because: the list can't include everything, and "fake" alone is allowable (I'm concentrating on the fact that the intro is "Words to watch:" not "Phrases to watch:" and none of the examples are phrases). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether this is a MOS question or an NPOV one. A MOS question would be something like "We need to give a short description of this person as part of WP:INTEXT attribution. Should we say 'the award-winning expert Professor I.M. Portant' or should we say 'the researcher I.M. Portant'?" An NPOV question sounds more like "So this happened, and then some people 'reacted' to it, so should we have a ==Reactions== section, where we can quote politicians who tweeted stuff like 'All that stuff criticizing me is just fake news' and 'Everyone knows the crisis is just fake news'?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter Gulutzan and WhatamIdoing for your input.
As recent list discussions/RFC suggest, there is a practical gap in how this label is applied. Some entire websites are described as fake based on interpretation rather than explicit characterization, which can exceed straightforward summarization under WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Unlike WP:BLP, where contentious claims/materials have clearer handling expectations, there is less clarity for strong labels applied to organizations, which can contribute to inconsistency.
Treating “fake” as a value-laden label would encourage clearer attribution per WP:INTEXT, ensure more consistent, source-supported use, and prevent WP:STATUSQUO (for example, this current discussion) from maintaining potentially unsupported labels indefinitely. N2225Lba2 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Weasel words'

[edit]

The section on 'weasel words' is ambiguous and seems to be based on a conflation of two things. It is one thing to say that we shouldn't just write 'most scholars think' without any citations. It is another to say that a citation isn't enough and that we should always specify the names of the scholars who think something in the text and explicitly attribute the statement to them. The latter is unreasonable, and yet many interpret the concept of 'weasel words' in exactly that way, which is why I regularly encounter such tags besides sourced statements (e.g. in the lede of Aztec Empire: 'Aztec rule has been described by scholars[who?] as hegemonic or indirect (Smith 2001).').

The issue isn't the words themselves (as the term 'weasel words' implies), it is the absence of sourcing, and we have already got WP:V as an expression of the latter point. Explicitly naming the scholars can actually mislead by implying that the view isn't as common as it actually is ('Dr George Harris claims that the Earth is round'), and listing all adherents of a view is obviously impossible. The focus on a person may be inappropriate (cf. 'Aztec rule has been described as indirect' with 'Dr George Harris has described Aztec rule as indirect': the readers of an article about the Aztec Empire are interested in the Aztec Empire, not in Dr George Harris). Writing simply 'Aztec rule was indirect', with a source, is perfectly uncontroversial, so it doesn't make sense that we should ban a more cautious formulation such as 'Aztec rule has been described as indirect', also with a source. Naming the source and explicitly attributing the statement to it is appropriate when the claim is known or likely to be controversial or at least unusual and innovative ('George Harris has argued that the Aztec model of governance should be emulated by modern societies'), but this isn't a principle that should apply to all claims.

Another matter is that broad statements about the majority view in a research field such as 'most scholars think' should not be made only based on a single source espousing that view as its own - the source itself needs to contain such an estimate. This isn't really made clear by the current formulation ('Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source'). Anonymous44 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ledes are different from the body, partially due to WP:LEDECITE and that the lede should not be super long so wording should be taken at a premium. A statement like 'Aztec rule has been described by scholars as hegemonic or indirect." is not appropriate for a lede, when there we can go "Aztec rule was likely hegemonic or indirect." importantly as long as the body of the article has a section that fleshes this out (which that article does). We still need the clarification word "likely" that this may not be considered as a fact in wikivoice (we can't flatout say "Aztec rule was hegemonic or indirect."), but we don't need to be trying to in-line attribute claims in the lede because of the limited space. Now, I would at least recommend that in this specific case, that lede sentence include briefly why its considered that way, and I'm no expert in that area, but my read from the body, something like "Aztec rule was likely hegemonic or indirect, with three city-states collecting tribute from outlying regions." (again, not my expertice)
In the body is a different story, and that's where including the who in attribution for claims is needed, and there's space to explain.
Also related, saying "by scholars" is not good form because it gives the impression it is a broad statement. Unless you have a source that sepcifically allows you to say "most scholars" (WP can't make that judgement), its always better to say "by some scholars", which you don't have to name but you need to follow that up with 3 or more sources illustrating that. Masem (t) 11:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Diagnosis" as a euphemism

[edit]

Maybe it's being used more frequently on Wikipedia, or maybe I only just started noticing, but "diagnosis" is a frequent euphemism for "condition" or "illness", perhaps especially in contexts related to disability.

The simplest way I can come up with to describe the difference to Wikipedia editors is that "diagnosis" must always be directly replaceable with "expert's opinion". TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true. A diagnosis is much more than an "opinion", it's the determination that a condition or illness is indeed present (and which one, or course). "X was diagnosed with Y" and "X has Y" essentially mean the same thing; for reasons of brevity the latter should typically be preferable, but there may be exceptions. Gawaon (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that my description was (intentionally) oversimplified. However, I think you might not be familiar enough with the particular ways that "diagnosis" is being misused to provide a euphemism. In some cases it seems to be just an individual editor's discomfort at needing to describe reality, in the same basic way that people have called cancer "the C word" to avoid naming it - but with this word it's a broader refusal to acknowledge any medical condition. In other cases I think it's used as what I might call an "advocacy euphemism", perhaps most often with mental illnesses or conditions.
Very roughly, too many editors think it's acceptable to say things like "he died of his diagnosis" or "his diagnosis affected his behavior". I'll find particular examples if needed. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to clean up such usages, but why did you write about the word here? Generally, any word can be used incorrectly; that doesn't yet make it a word to watch. Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree those usages are problematic. If you can show this is widespread then I support adding it to WTW Czarking0 (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ties

[edit]

I think the word tie as in X is tied to Y or X has ties to Y should be added to the list due to vagueness Czarking0 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the accepted term in network analysis. It's more precise than "relationship", and it's shorter than "connection". Selbstporträt (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to do OR network analysis then I encourage you to do so elsewhere. Most of the sources used here are not doing network analysis and do not support using that term. Your comment here is probably representative of the whole problem with this article. Czarking0 (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about vagueness, then you should know what vagueness means.
If you want to beg questions that are false, do continue. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is an often useful term, way too versatile to be generally "suspicious". Gawaon (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if it is supported by sources we should use it. And I did not say nor do I think it is suspicious so I think you should strike that quote. Czarking0 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but if it's not suspicious, then why list it here? And unsourced stuff shouldn't be in articles at all, I'd say. Gawaon (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't extend "stuff" to what usually falls under paraphrase. That's the best way to turn entries into patchwriting.
If "link" or "connection" are fine but "tie" is not, then the issue may lie with the personal experiences of the editor who worries about connotations that do not exist. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said suspicious as you continue to quote and this is not a talk page about suspicious phrasing. I am discussion WP:WTW which does not even mention suspicious please strike your comments. Czarking0 (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you said that. Quoting somebody else is not the only reason to add quotation marks around a term. Now you did say the phrase "should be added to the list due to vagueness". The page does have a section "Expressions that lack precision" where this could, in principle, fit. However, the only subsections where it could conceivably belong are "Euphemisms" and "Clichés and idioms". Is "ties" a euphemism, a cliché, or an idiom? I don't think so, and I therefore maintain that there is no good reason to add the term. Gawaon (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia sections are normative not prescriptive. One does not refrain from adding adding due content because existing subsections do not fit Czarking0 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually asking that we prescribe against using "tie".
The issue has nothing to do with vagueness: "tie" is as well-defined as "link" or "connection". That is, it does the work it does perfectly well most of the times. It's just not a word to watch, like "lately", "the top five" (which isn't a word), and "specified" (instead of said, which should also be in the list, somewhere).
The issue is about the implicit suggestion that "tie" is somehow a loaded term, by euphemism. It's not. The idea of quoting science papers was meant to address that point. It's a perfectly neutral term, unlike the word "clique", say, or "operatives", which sources sometimes use and should be fine, but doesn't appeal to some editors.
It's usage that makes an expression moot, not words themselves. Words don't stand alone. They need sentences. And sentences need paragraphs, texts, cultural traditions, etc. So the question rests on the commonality of the usage, which our specific sources corroborate albeit indirectly. Only the description of said tie (or link or whatever) along with evidence of ties will clarify what is meant by the word. Humans learn language by association: "this is a house", "this is a circle", "this is a tie", etc.
A financial tie is a kind of relationship. Yet we wouldn't say a "financial relationship", for "relationship" could convey something stronger than "financial tie". Intuitively, the order of strength should be: link, tie, connection, relationship. But that's just a hypothesis, one that can't really be settled from our armchairs. We'd need to ask people.
But as a matter of fact, "financial tie" is the only word that seems to fit here. It says what it needs to say. Not more, not less. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously suggest adding a whole new subsection to this page because of a single word you don't like? Gawaon (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No I just meant what I said. What do once we have consensus to add ties can be figured out then. Czarking0 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know you mean what you said, which is why I said what I said, including what I said about vagueness. The MOS isn't "normative" in the same way as the WP pages are. To contribute constructively to these pages requires a change of perspective. Common sense is required either way, but each in their own way.
Arguing by assertion isn't enough: to show that "tie" is a euphemism, you'd have to provide examples where a stronger, more exact word would fit best. Enough examples so that other editors could see that your argument is somewhat general.
To backtrack to "I just want a vote" isn't enough now. Show that your request is worth consideration, or retract it. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you Gawaon? Czarking0 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There is nothing wrong with the word (expression) itself – any problems with individual usages should be dealt with on the relevant article's talk page. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&oldid=1353955687"