User:Auntof6/Words to watch

Any word or expression can be used on Wikipedia. There are no forbidden words or expressions here. However, be careful using expressions that might not show a neutral point of view. Try not to use words that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or are in favor of a particular point of view.

The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided. It should not be applied rigidly. Articles should be well-written and follow the basic Wikipedia policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. However, this does not apply to quotations. Quotations should should given exactly as they were originally. See the section on quotations in the main Manual of Style.

Words that may introduce bias

Puffery

... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso ...

These words and words like them are often used without sources to make the subject of an article seem more important. However, they do not give verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Use facts and references to show importance.

• Peacock example ("peacock terms" in italics):

• Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

• 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 been covered by hundreds of other artists.

Articles that use words like these should be rewritten to fix the problem.

Contentious labels

... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, myth, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ...

Value-laden words—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion. It is best not to use them unless they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. If that is the case, then give inline references. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Specific notes:

• The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable.
• The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt.
• When using controversial, give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.

Unsupported attributions

... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...

"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}} template so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).

Expressions of doubt

... supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...

Words such as supposed, apparent 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 is 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.

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.

Editorializing

... notably, interestingly, it should be noted, essentially, actually, clearly, without a doubt, of course, fortunately, happily, unfortunately, tragically, untimely ...

The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided to maintain an impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually, which implies a fact is contrary to expectations; make sure this is verifiable and not just assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and are often excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

Synonyms for said

... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...

Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, explained, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

Expressions that lack precision

Euphemisms

... passed away, gave his life, make love, an issue with, collateral damage, ethnic cleansing, living with cancer, sightless, people with blindness ...

The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away. Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute, nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.

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 is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.

Clichés and idioms

... lion's share, tip of the iceberg, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...

Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, or two-thirds. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for descriptions of icebergs; the small portion evident conveys the substance without gilding the lily. People in Wikipedia articles do not take the plunge, they simply do things. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded. For more examples, Wiktionary includes a lengthy list of English idioms.

Relative time references

... recently, lately, currently, presently, today, nowadays, to date, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, winter, spring, summer, fall, autumn ...

See also: en:Wikipedia:As of and en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Precise language

When writing about this kind of thing, use specific language instead of general language. Give a specific point in time instead of saying "nowadays", "today", "now", etc.

Examples:

• General: Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith.
• Better: A Gallup poll in December 2024 showed that Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since January.

Do the same thing when writing about things that can change. Examples of this are:

• A person being in a political office (he or she won't be in that office forever)
• Being the current champion in a sport
• Where a person lives (the person could move)

• General: Consuelo Lopez is the current Miss Universe.
• Better: Consuelo Lopez was crowned Miss Universe on June 1, 2012.
• General: John Smith currently lives in New York. -or- John Smith has lived in New York since April 2009.
• Better: John Smith moved to New York in April 2009.

When material in an article may become out of date, follow the en:Wikipedia:As of guideline.

Because seasons occur at various times around the world, consider instead using months, quarters, or other more widely applicable terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest).

Example:

• General: The Australian Prime Minister went to New Zealand in the winter of 2007.
• Better: The Australian Prime Minister went to New Zealand in June 2007.

Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is a problem because it is unclear how long the thing has been a tradition. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources.

Example:

• General: hamburgers are a traditional American food
• Better: the hamburger was invented in about 1900. It became widely popular in the US in the 1930s

Several templates exist that may be useful to alert readers to time-sensitive wording issues.

• Use template {{When}} to mark something that needs words that are more specific.
• Use template {{update}} when out-of-date information might be making the information in an article wrong.
• Use template {{Update_after}} to mark something that will become out of date at a specific time in the future.

Neologisms and new compounds

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary § Neologisms

Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. Adding -ism to a word, for instance, may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well established.

Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities

See the main page: Wikipedia:Offensive material

Wikipedia is not censored and its encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Quoted words should appear as in the original source. But language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.