Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:31, 21 January 2025

• WT:WTW
• WT:W2W

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff) Copied Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid (history) → Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

See also related discussions and archives: Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid neologisms Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid peacock terms Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid weasel words Misplaced Pages talk:Words to avoid

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

"Statesman" and "nationalist"

I've been noticing that POV-leaning contributors and articles tend to use the descriptors "statesman" and "nationalist" (sometimes both) to implicitly express approval of some people, rather than the more neutral "politician".

These labels aren't necessarily contentious; they're often used by sources themselves, some of which are also clearly POV. Is this something we should try to discourage? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A nationalist need not be a politician. —Tamfang (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, I should have specified; more talking about the use of that word for articles about politicians. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

And nationalist is hardly a neutral term; for some it is positive, for others, negative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for anchovies. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And same for "educator"; that word seems to be absent for maligned people who were teachers at some point. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Statesman" is subjective and non-neutral. Per Cambridge, "an experienced politician, especially one who is respected for making good judgments". Misplaced Pages shouldn't describe people as "statesmen".

"Nationalist" reflects a particular political viewpoint and whether someone is one is somewhat subjective. Nationalism will be seen as a positive or negative by different people but "nationalist" is a neutral term for it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above; nationalist is useful and neutral language (though, context may change this), but "statesman" is unambiguously positive. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Thoughts on "educator"? I feel it's a similar case to "statesman". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's unambiguously positive like "statesman", but I do see it in a lot of excessively promotional biography articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What do we think of describing someone like Éamon de Valera or George Washington (see infobox under occupation) as a statesman? Ifly6 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Stated

This page says "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate". However, as I stated above, ;-) the word stated is not neutral. I therefore propose that we remove it from this particular sentence. (If you all prefer, we could add it to the sentence about noted and observed, or we could just leave it out entirely.)

Garner's Modern English Usage, which is a significant source for our own Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style pages, including this one, says "Whenever possible, use say rather than state". It says that stated is stilted and more formal and authoritative – which, translated into our jargon, means that it's not neutral.

Theodore Menline Bernstein has an entry in The Careful Writer that states that using the word "state is to express in detail or to recite" and directly says that this is not an exact synonym for say.

Wiktionary gives wikt:state#Verb the definition as "To declare to be a fact". Cambridge Dictionary emphasizes that when you state something, you are saying something "clearly and carefully". Collins says that when you state something, you "say or write it in a formal or definite way". Brittanica's dictionary agrees that it's a more formal way of expressing something. A formal, careful, definite, factual declaration is not exactly the same as just saying something. Say only declares the fact that someone said it. State claims that what was said is factually correct and carefully expressed.

The reason I have looked into these sources is because I've seen a couple of editors assert that say and state seem interchangeable to them, and I'd like to decide this on the basis of sources, rather than on the basis of personal feelings. I think the sources state that the verb state is not "almost always neutral". What do you think the sources say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there is a neutrality problem with the word ‘state’. My dictionary (Concise Oxford) gives as the primary meaning of the verb: express, esp fully or clearly, in speech or writing, which is my understanding of the usual meaning. It gives as an example: have stated my opinion which goes against the idea that stating is always about facts.

And your examples don’t seem to me to demonstrate that the word is not neutral. "state is to express in detail or to recite" does not imply the truth of what is stated and "To declare to be a fact" also does not imply that such a declaration is correct.

So I would leave ‘state’ as a neutral word.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, did you compare that against your dictionary definition for say?

I'm asking because if say is "to express" and state is "to express fully or clearly", then these are not always interchangeable. Editors should not just swap one in for the other out of a desire for variety. See also Misplaced Pages:The problem with elegant variation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For ‘say’ my dictionary has as the primary meaning: utter (specified words) in a speaking voice; remark; put into words; express; state; promise or prophesy. So, whilst ‘say’ and ‘state’ may convey the same meaning, there are different nuances. But I don’t see that this means that ‘state’ is in any way non-neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem either. There may be small nuances in meaning (as there always are), but any edit merely changing "state" to "say" or "write" (or vice versa) would not be an improvement, as either wording is fine. Gawaon (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"State" seems neutral, and will often be more consistent with the level of sourcing we expect from "Reliable Sources". PamD 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We use a lot of sources that are merely he said/she said content: "Paul Politician said that he was conservative, but Chris Challenger stated that he was not." In a sentence like that, you might as well say that Paul might have claimed it, but he's wrong.

I wonder if we could have a discussion that isn't based entirely on editors' personal opinions and what "seems" to them. I just provided sources saying that it's not "almost always" neutral. Do you think that we could have a discussion about our guidelines based on what the reliable sources say, instead of entirely based on what "seems" to be the case according to editors' own opinions? Based on the three responses so far, I'm thinking that's not going to be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But it's the problem here how "but" is used? Would it be better to write: "Paul Politician said that he was conservative, but Chris Challenger said that he was not." Or: "Paul Politician said that he was conservative, but according to Chris Challenger, he was not." ? Gawaon (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be better not to use said for one and the more "definite" (per Collins Dictionary) state for the other. They are not equivalent, and state is stronger. Even if you said "Paul said...and Chris stated...", you're setting up Chris to be the stronger, more factual, more definite, more thoughtful, etc. speaker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know what "almost always neutral" means. One can say something non-neutral using any word imaginable. Either the use of the word itself is inherently non-neutral or it isn't.

I think "stated" is "said" with a degree of formality or deliberativeness that isn't conveyed by "said". Using the word doesn't convey any attitude by the speaker/writer about the person doing the stating or the thing being stated. Basically, "he stated" = "he made a statement to the effect that". Largoplazo (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that what's meant by "almost always neutral" is that you should be able to use any of these words without needing to worry about "implications" or "nuances".

• Alice said the music is a blend of K-pop and Latin.
• Alice described the music as a blend of K-pop and Latin.
• Alice wrote that the music is a blend of K-pop and Latin.
• According to Alice, the music is a blend of K-pop and Latin.

but "Alice stated..." signals that Alice has a special authority or expertise, and that she is, after deliberation, formally declaring that her assessment is true. It's not simply something she said; it's now something that she has stated.

I think stated belongs in the next sentence, which says "For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable in a discussion on words in the English language for English speakers to state their understanding of the words. Our readers are not likely to refer to what Misplaced Pages editors consider to be reliable sources on the meaning of words: they will take the meaning to be what they understand as the usual meaning. Our editors are sample readers in that respect. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At least in theory, when we have sources saying that stated is more formal/definite/authoritative/objective/truthful than said – and the NPOV policy saying that editors shouldn't use more formal/definite/authoritative/objective/truthful language for only one POV in an article – then we usually prefer to follow the sources, instead of following editors' own opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Shenanigans

It turns out that "WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects to this section of this article when putting it in a link, but putting "WP:CONTENTIOUS" in the search bar goes to this essay instead. MOS:CONTENTIOUS, meanwhile, seems to always go to this page. Should ""WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here" in this article be replaced with ""MOS:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here"? I'd be bold and do it myself but I'm afraid to touch the MOS. Placeholderer (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue that you describe is because the redirect WP:CONTENTIOUS does not redirect to Misplaced Pages:Contentious, but instead goes to this MOS. There is already MOS:CONTENTIOUS. Pinging the redirect creator, LaundryPizza03. —Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Should ""WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here" in this article be replaced with ""MOS:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here"? Not unless the WP:CONTENTIOUS target is changed. Nobody should be suprised that an MOS-prefix shortcut ends up at an MOS page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Bestseller

Does anyone else besides me have an opinion about this word? Publishers routinely describe their new books as bestsellers, with no basis whatsoever. We then quote these blurbs as if it was fact. In this way, really marginal works get elevated to books of momentous importance. I was many years ago involved in a rather bitter dispute over Mein Kampf in Arabic. The article originally contended - based on one unsupported claim in a single AFP article - that the book was a major bestseller in the Arab world. Since then, I see the word cropping up again and again.

I think that there should be a rule that a book can be called a bestseller only if there is a citation to a recognized listing of bestsellers, like the New York Times bestseller list.

I should note here that I myself have written three books, and they are all bestsellers. I promise you. Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need a special rule for that but you can certainly remove any "bestseller" claim that's not backed by a reliable source (such as the NY Times list, say). Gawaon (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

But what about the publisher. When Doubleday writes in its blurb "bestseller" is that something we can allow as reliable? See, for example, this blurb is the basis of claiming that the book "Kosher Sex" is a bestseller at Shmuley Boteach Ravpapa (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Rely on an independent source(s), not the publisher, who has a vested interest in promoting their book. —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

When I see claims like this (i.e., in the US/English market), even when it's printed on the book itself, it usually specifies the basis for the best seller claim (e.g., "A USA Today bestseller"). There are different markets (e.g., best seller in the US vs best seller in Brazil) and different ways to count (e.g., are e-books and paperbacks counted as separate 'books'? NYT says yes, and USA Today says no), but you should usually be able to figure out something about the basis for that claim, and therefore find a source better than a dust jacket blurb. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Care when removing relative time references

I've just reverted/changed a couple of instances where an editor simply removed the word currently without replacing it with anything else and cited MOS:RELTIME. I felt that one edit removed a small piece of implied information from the article, and the other removed an important caveat about information being changeable. (The first involved astronomical timescales before currently could become inaccurate, so I just reverted that one. For the other I inserted a {{when?}} tag.)

I've not thought about a wording yet, but I wonder if something might be added to that section, to the effect that

• one should be careful not to inadvertently remove information or create a false impression of permanence, and that
• it's usually/often/sometimes better to edit or tag the reference than just delete it.

The point is that deleting the relative reference altogether can make things worse rather than better—it was probably inserted for a reason, which might be a valid one that can be preserved by appropriate editing. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

illegal aliens vs undocumented immigrants

I propose adding a recommendation in this guideline, unless as in a legal sense, to prefer the use of phrase "unauthorized (im)migrant" in place of "illegal aliens" or "undocumented immigrants", at least in US politics. These two phrasing has been identified in literature as one of the hallmarks of media bias, which we should be avoiding.

I believe this article explains the controversy well: it is cruel to declare a person in it of themself illegal, but "undocumented immigrants" is an euphemism. It also acknowledges "unauthorized immigrant" is not without its own value judgements, but I believe, at least politically, "unauthorized immigrant" is the most neutral. Non-partisan outlets like Pew Research Center and AllSides also use the phrasing "unauthorized (im)migrant". The Associated Press style guide recommends against calling immigrants "illegal", "undocumented", "unauthorized", "irregular", or anything of the sort, but does not provide a clear alternative.

Last discussion on this was back at 2017, with no action taken.

If such recommendation is added, articles like Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States, Undocumented immigrant population of the United States, and Healthcare availability for undocumented immigrants in the United States should be renamed. Ca 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems too narrow to rise to the level of policy, and can be justified and implemented on a per-article basis, no? Remsense ‥ 论 12:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm practicing whataboutism here, but I do believe the MOS:SURVIVEDBY should be removed, as it is even more narrower and of less consequence than my proposal. Ca 12:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm betting AP doesn't provide an alternative because after repeated application of the euphemism treadmill they've run out of terms they can use that somebody won't find some way of picking apart by speciously reanalyzing what a term means, and by confusing the use of the term with the speaker's attitude toward its referrent regardless of the term used, as though replacing the term will change people's attitudes. There is some terminology that's needed replacing over the years, but now coming up with reasons to reject common terminology and replace it with something artificial and cumbersome is starting to seem like a party game.

The funny thing with the move from "illegal immigrant" to "undocumented immigrant" is that a person who's in another country illegally may very well have documentation: their birth certificates, their driver's permits, even their passports. And it puts the cart before the horse: One's immigration doesn't become legal as a consequence of having some particular documentation. The documentation is issued as a consequence of a person's immigration having been declared legal. The person's legal status, not the documentation issued in connection with it, is the core issue. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with others that even in the US, "alien" has become outmoded, more of a legalistic term and too far overloaded with its usual meaning these days of a being from outer space. Largoplazo (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone in the UK I've always assumed that "illegal" and "undocumented" immigrants in the US were two different groups of people: for example, ones whose presence had been assessed and found to be illegal, versus ones the state had no record of. I took it to be a legal distinction, not a euphemism for the same thing. I didn't realise it was about the immigrant not having a document. So undocumented is a decidedly confusing term. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A trivial observation that's hinted at in the 2017 discussion but not made explicit: to British readers aliens are pretty unambiguously extraterrestrials, and I think that for most of us that's the image that illegal alien immediately conjures up, despite knowing its intended meaning. So for us it's comedic rather than neutral.As for solutions, surely the best one is to word things so as to label the status rather than the person, though it can be tricky finding a wording that isn't cumbersome. But I do think finding alternative adjectives for the person is the wrong approach—we should be looking for ways not to need a label for them. Illegal immigrants may not apply→ Applicants must reside legally, say. Musiconeologist (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree; the MOS should encourage avoiding any " (im)migrant/alien"-type description unless absolutely necessary, such as in article titles. Ca 14:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)