Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:53, 29 May 2014

• WT:WTW
• WT:W2W

See also related discussions and archives:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid weasel words
• Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid peacock terms
• Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid neologisms
• Misplaced Pages talk:Words to avoid

Hate groups

I think we should add a guideline section of when to refer to groups as "Hate groups"... I'm pretty new to[REDACTED] but I've already seen this label used twice to push a point of view... once in the GQ controversy section of the Duck Dynasty article... citing that phil recieved support from three anti gay hate groups.. and once in the lead in on the stop the islamization of america article... there is even a great deal of discussion going on in the talk section of how to characterize the groups characterization the petitioners as anti gay... I consider the tid bit to be a bit of a point of view push because it referenced no article except for a list of anti gay hate groups.. and of course those who disagreed with his remarks also labeled them as anti gay.. but that's beside the point.. I think that SPLC labels are needed in some instances about a subject but only as a tid bit.. like in the body of main article it would be appropriate to note the group was labeled as a hate group.... but I think we need to stay away from using the label everytime the group comes up... I wouldn't consider it to be a word to avoid but surely there seems to be a need for a section in the guidelines on how to apply such labels properly and relevantly.... the argument seems to be that since the splc lists them as hate groups then it's appropriate to also list them as hate groups... but to use that rationale one could write an article about stem cell research and list one of it's critics as an anti-gay hate group... which would just seem silly... Nickmxp (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I say "hate group" is fine, if it's called that in the source used to back whatever objective claim is made. Combining the factual source with a second list of groups labelled hate groups (by anyone) to make a new point is WP:SYNTHESIS. Not using any sources is even worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

In the Duck Dynasty instance, best to just list the three groups by name. That footnote to the rationale looks deceptively like a reference, in the body. Can't fix it myself, apparently there were page-locking fights there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

The Stop Islamization of America one is a bit more fair, as it's directly about the group, and the designation is clearly attributed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, January 24, 2014 (UTC)

the SOIA page is a little bit coy about labeling.. which is why I though it was a good example, as I agree that the part at the end stating it's been labeled a hate group... I don't think the very first sentence calling it an anti Islam anti Muslim organization (the type of hate group it has been labeled) is very neutral... it would be like having the first sentence of the family research council state that the family research council is an anti gay organization founded in 1862... (or what ever year it was founded in ) and then at the end of the description saying it was called a hate by the SPLC.. the duck dynasty page got locked over a conflict over this very subject... Nickmxp (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't even looked at the first sentence. Now that I do, yeah, that's a bit shady. Also defies WP:LEADCITE. Whenever I see a buttload of citations next to anything, it rings my "somebody's trying to prove a point" bell, and it looks more dubious than it would have with none.

And when I see the words "Islam" and "United States", I think 7th most controversial topic meets 13th. Those are unlucky numbers, so I'm afraid I can only offer moral support. I'm a scarred veteran of Misplaced Pages's 4th worst warzone, but at least that was fun. These religious and political battles are all basically the same, and never end. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

The reason I see the SOIA thing as a point of view shift is simply because that first sentence couldn't be used to describe their mirror organization stop the Islamazation of Europe because the SPLC doesn't label groups outside of the us even though they have essentially the same objectives... Nickmxp (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely prefer their lead. Nice and factual. No citation clutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Denmark and Norway's SIO articles are also quite alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I believe a guideline for when and how to use labels applied by third parties should be included... it could stop alot of edit war headaches... (personally I'm now staying out of the editing part concerning these labels although I do make my objections known... I tried to condense the GQ section... rookie mistake... lol) Although the mis application of labels can be covered using other guidelines, it seems to me that when other guidelines are pointed out it fuels an already tense debate by both sides discerning the applicability of such guidelines to that situation... It would seem there is a need to have a go-to section for clarity.Nickmxp (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It should have the same requirement for other labels in WP:LABEL. Which, unless used widely in multiple reliable sources, should be avoided. Same as "cult." --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen people try to explain the wp label only to be met with stuff like the SPLC is a highly reliable source.. after all the lead in sentence on the SIOA has a list of sources backing up it's label up but it doesn't read neutrally... it reads as a well sourced point of view... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The requirement is "widely recognized." One group is not enough. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

True but most hate groups are widely recognized as such due to the labeling of one group.. a list of hate groups is widely recognized.. I think in terms of general guidelines it would be more neutral to open an article about a group with how that group labels themselves.. and then stating the labels of others.. and to apply the term hate group only in frame of the people who reported on the issue if the labeling was widely reported.. example with the gq section.. if multiple news stations reported an anti gay hate group was supporting Phil.. then it would be reasonable to arrest that Phil was being supported by an anti gay hate group.. but if multiple sources state only the groups name then only the groups name should be reported.. and if you got multiple sources using the name and only one or two using the label.. the name should be applied as it the group was most noted by name. It seems the labeling is being used in this instance to promote motive behind the support that Phil received that was not generally noted by sources as the rationale for support... because generally what I've seen I the term hate group is being used to imply motive as fact... even if it contradicts other motives and the label if used improperly can give license to the opinionated to state their beliefs as fact and their opponents beliefs as questionable all under the authority. Of the word hate group.. Nickmxp (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nickmxp:I believe labels that even hint at being contentious should not be used. Contentious labels, particularly value-laden labels serve no purpose other than to further agendas and POVs. It could be construed as WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:SYNTHESIS depending on what links are used in the template. For example, editors need a better understanding of the effects of value-laden labels such as Islamophobia, and the important differences in the words Islam/Islamic and Islamism/Islamist extremism. I recently posted the following to a threaded discussion on an RFC: Does the use of the Islamophobia template in this article violate wikipedias policy on NPOV?---> I feel this is extremely important (emphasis my own) - WP guidelines "Value-laden labels" state: Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions". The Islamophobia template does just that through the use of "Islam" and "phobia". Together, the words sway emotions, and indirectly promote a cause which in this case inadvertently happens to be Islamism. Organizations that investigate and collect data for the purpose of exposing Islamist extremism are not phobic, should not be labeled phobic, and should not be connected to contentious labeling in a phobia series. The Islamophobia template links to articles about genocide, and Qu'ran burnings which are unrelated. In fact, it may even be considered WP:Synthesis. It is neither the purpose of WP nor the job of editors to link unrelated articles they "assume" may be of interest to readers, especially when such linking is done through value-laden labeling.

Newsweek published a very informative article distinguishing the difference between Islamic and Islamist. It is titled Islamic or Islamist? Pluralist and secular Muslims are certainly able to discern the difference as evidenced in multiple reliable sources. In fact there is an excellent article about Islamism in WP. With no intention of offending anyone, it appears to me that the Islamophobia template may have originated from ignorance about the differences between Islam, and Islamism/Islamist extremism. WP is spreading that ignorance by the continued use of the Islamophobia template. It is of the utmost importance for WP editors to understand the differences.Atsme ☯ talk 13:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Adventurer"

Re. the lede of Chris Terrill, does it violate WP:PEACOCK to call him an "adventurer"? It Is Me Here 11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If no sources call him that, and it's not in the main body in any way, then yes. If sources call him that or an equivalent term, then no. That lead needs work no matter what. It should also summarize any significant or notable specific work and career experiences. The main body text needs some rewriting to avoid peacock phraseology. However, this isn't really a noticeboard for other articles, so you should work on it at that article's talk page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I brought it up here since my main question regards whether or not that substantive counts as a Peacock term. (By contrast, e.g. "lawyer" presumably wouldn't, even if unattributed.) I linked to the article just so people could see the context I had seen the word in. It Is Me Here 13:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In that context I think it's a little unencyclopedic and imprecise (like listing someone as a "romantic", even when it's arguably true and not being used in a promotional or peacock manner). The fix in this case would be to remove "adventurer" and state more about what the subject is notable about in the lead. I don't think the word is necessarily "promotional" in all cases but I don't think it's useful there. The article does have many other instances of overly promotional and editorializing language, so I think you're right to look at it, e.g. brought together his two passions (the military and the theatre) in a remarkable way. There are also some possibly BLP-problematic issues where we quote him bad-mouthing and being bad-mouthed by his ex-fiancee, which seems a bit against WP:NOTGOSSIP. Hope this helps.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

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).189.138.250.29 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to address Codename Lisa's change to the beginning of that section, and this is because her change is bit redundant to the second sentence, the sentence the IP cited above. Flyer22 (talk) 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. 189.138.245.69 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As you might have seen, Lisa implemented your request. As for the rest of what you want changed, if no one watching this page objects soon, I suggest you be WP:Bold and make the changes yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 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. Choor monster (talk) 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.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 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 Iran–Contra affair, 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. Choor monster (talk) 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. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. --> Use these in articles only with in-text attribution except in reference to Watergate. That might solve all our problems at once?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 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 Iran–Contra affair 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 Silent Coup.

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. Debategate fails this. Choor monster (talk) 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: 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 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 WP:FLAT, 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: Misplaced Pages:FLAT#Historical_note.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 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 WP:FLAT'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 le mot de Cambronne, 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. Choor monster (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the argument I'm trying to make: the MOS currently says "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 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."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 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 holotype "-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 Lasagna-gate.

As another prominent example, Climategate 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. Choor monster (talk) 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.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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 "argle-bargle morble whoosh" 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 2012 Benghazi attack article does not mention the word, even as an alternative name, and there is an extraordinarily stupidly pleonastic Benghazigate scandal 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 Han shot first, 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. Choor monster (talk) 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?" Student7 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lazy enhancement words

Lazy enhancement words

• WP:VERY
• WP:LAZYWORDS

Template:Quote box4

Intensifiers like very and really (or not very, etc.) used to "magnify" another word should be replaced with a more precise single-word verb, adjective, or adverb.

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)

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).