Manual of Style

This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia: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 articles This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

2005 categorized contributions 2007–2008 discussion on British nationality 2008 discussion on honorific prefixes Jan 2003 – Feb 2003 Oct 2003 – Sep 2004 Oct 2004 – Jan 2006 Jan 2006 – Feb 2007 Feb 2007 – Dec 2007 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

After answering a question at the help desk, I was left pondering about this guideline and engaged in a quest of organization and stylistic changes to improve the page. It was to improve the form, visuals, style, navigation, organization. I did not intend any meaning changes and if there is any it was likely unintended. I hope the changes are of the liking of my fellow editors. If not, feel free to discuss or change. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When is it useful or encyclopedic to say something like "he died seven and a half weeks before his 93rd birthday" instead of "he died at age 92"? I might be convinced to allow something like "she died one day before her 100th birthday", but where do we draw the line? Chris the speller ^yack 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller, I see no point in including that sort of content. The age at death should be sufficient. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, I would expect a reliable source to mention it, establishing some significance.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the response. There are hundreds of these, including some like this: "exactly two weeks before his 95th birthday". What precision! But what good does it do for any reader? I will nibble away at this pile of excessive drivel. Chris the speller ^yack 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller, a related point is that in many cases where such expressions appear the date of birth is unsourced. Therefore any expression of a span before or after a birthday would be unsourced, also (unless the span is stated in the obituary or has some other reliable source). Eddie Blick (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that a line should be drawn, if the detail is reliably sourced, I don't see how it benefits the reader to provide a less precise range rather than a more precise one. The fact that such references commonly occur in reporting suggests that it is a detail likely to be of interest to readers, and I would generally be opposed to any sweeping campaign of removing these details, absent a lack of sourcing. BD2412 T 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the specific date of death is provided, can't the reader determine for themself how much of a "partial year" of age they had at the time of their death? I don't really see any need to include something extraneous like that, especially when it's already there for anyone who actually is interested. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find such details to be excessive, with the damage being distraction and undue weight. Birthday anniversaries just aren't (usually) that important. It is appropriate in some nonencyclopedic writing that is trying to add some color to the story, but Wikipedia should stick to plain facts. I think some editors would even reject this as analysis of the sources (assuming the sources just give the birth and death dates). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since 99.7% of our dear departed did not die on their birthday, for uniformity we should either specify the proximity to their birthday or omit it. If everybody gets the birthday mention, who's going to pitch in and add it to the hundreds of thousands of articles that don't yet have it? Easier to remove it from the relatively few articles where the subject's niece or nephew added this unencyclopedic trivia. Chris the speller ^yack 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that newspapers have some rule for this. It is very common for news reports to indicate this proximity where it is close (within a few weeks). Taken to the opposite extreme, why do we say of someone, "he died at age 92" rather than "he died in his 90s"? BD2412 T 04:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my first post at the top of this discussion, I asked "where do we draw the line?" To me, "until his death three months before his 56th birthday" is only slightly less preposterous than "until his death ten months before his 56th birthday". Chris the speller ^yack 05:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where do we draw the line": YMMV. Depending on where and when, some are satisfied if it's verifiable (or even via WP:CALC), others may get into whether it's WP:DUE. Ultimately, there's the WP:ONUS policy:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone died weeks before their birthday is more informative to the reader than merely stating their age. Within two weeks is probably a reasonable cutoff, unless we are talking about some milestone (100th birthday, for example), perhaps for which celebratory plans were already in the works (see, e.g., Betty White#Betty White: A Celebration (2022)). BD2412 T 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think if a reliable source deems it important enough to mention, so should we. GiantSnowman 21:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BD, we certainly do not need any campaign to remove all such mentions. We are writing for the facts, yes, but that does not mean we should strive to make this place completely devoid of colour (anyone else still running Vector 2022?) We are not robots, but if anyone wants a rule, then yes, it seems silly to mention a birthday if it was more than a month out, and removing that seems fine to me. Beyond that, personally I wouldn’t add such detail without it being closer than a week on either side, but to remove it is more of a waste of time than many, many other things you could be doing instead. — HTGS (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disabilities are almost never mentioned in first sentences, just nationality and occupation. See Category:Deaf actors for examples. However this article (Kaylee Hottle) seems to be breaking established status quo. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence should highlight attributes that the subject is most notable for. Which attributes should be mentioned is very subject specific. Sometimes an attribute is crucial to a person’s notability (ie the person is notable because of that attribute), while the same attribute may be trivial to the notability of another person. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:SELFID come into play at all? How does the subject of the article consider themselves? An actress who is deaf, or a deaf actress? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the opening sentence. That should be based on independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it is central to the subject's notability, it should be mentioned. When not, not. An example where it is central and mentioned is Chieko Asakawa. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta be honest, in both of the articles mentioned above I would make sure the disability is in the lead, and maybe the second sentence, but I wouldn’t put it in the first sentence as they are. Most people should be regarded for their work first, then their disability. The fact that they are deaf or blind is not the primary reason these people are notable, but it has clearly had a strong impact. — HTGS (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been active in creating and editing business biographies here for many years. For a few weeks now I have been replacing phrasings such as "John Doe serves as the CEO of XYZ Inc", with "John Doe is the CEO of XYZ Inc". The latter is more concise, and I think clearer and more neutral. The edit summary I have typically given is "copyedit, more neutral language". None of my edits have been reverted. On my talk page, User_talk:Edwardx#"serving_as"_non-neutral?, Anastrophe has asked "can you point me to the policy or discussion where it was determined that "serving as" is non-neutral language?".

MOS:OPENPARABIO reads "The first sentence should usually state ... One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." I think that "serves as" is subjective and contentious. Private sector companies, PR and the business press encourage us to (at least subconciously) see some sort of equivalence between private sector business roles and what might traditionally have been called "public service".

For business biographies this seems clear-cut. But what about politicians, armed forces personnel, roles in not-for-profit organisations, and unpaid roles? I think that we should consider removing "serving/serves/served as" from all articles, and would much appreciate hearing the views of other editors. Edwardx (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this, Edwardx. I'll repeat my question/arguments from Edwardx's talk page here, for further clarity. First largely responds to the question of use for military, politicians, etc.

"[...] I'm still unclear in what way describing someone as serving a particular position or role is non-neutral - it doesn't sympathize with nor disparage the subject in any way that I can discern. Politicians and military personnel work within the broader scope of what is commonly and accurately characterized as "public service". With the exception of extremely minor public service, such as serving on a small town's city council, where the members only fill that role part-time and earn a living elsewhere, those in public service aren't expected to work for free. Being paid doesn't change what their role is."

And reply to the contention that the biz press encourages its use so that we subconsciously see an equivalence with public service:

"But is that the case? I hate to throw out the original research argument, but that's what this appears to be. Absent a concrete policy stating that the terminology is overtly violating WP:NEUTRAL, rather than an individual editor's notion about what the term might mean, I think you should bring the matter up in the appropriate place for broader discussion, rather than imposing this as a blanket change. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support your opinion on this. I've seen 'serving as' used to describe a "low level" customer service representative position - that's why it's described as "customer service".

Look forward to other perspectives as well. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see this sort of phrasing only for unpaid roles that one might actually consider as service rather than employment. Or maybe for someone serving in the armed forces; that's also commonly called service. But not for just a job, CEO or otherwise. "Served as" has the connotation that to hold this position is a service to society, and (in cases where it is just a job rather than obviously being a service) we should avoid that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with Edwardx's edits, though there may well be cases where "serves" is appropriate. However, I disagree with the edit summary. I don't think it is a matter of neutrality. I would use an edit summary along the lines of "plain English". The text being removed is often just verbiage, and not the great writing we aspire to. If a link was desired for plain English, there is the essay Wikipedia:Use plain English. Nurg (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to consider narrative flow. It is utterly tedious to read an article where every sentence is "Smith was this, and then Smith was that, and after that Smith was the other thing". Phrases like "served as" break up the tedium, which is sometimes necessary for readability. BD2412 T 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dubious... repetitive prose usually derives from syntax problems, in which case the solution is not to start substituting synonyms. See WP:ELEVAR.

"serves as" is usually not the simplest and most direct way of solving the sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is bog-standard terminology, however. See, e.g., William Francis Rocheleau, Great American Industries: Manufactures (1900), p. 8: "The stick served as a lever, and the stone as a weight". No lofty subjective praise is read into that. It is more descriptive than "was". BD2412 T 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's an extremely commonplace construction, it's just usually not the simplest one.

Your "stick served as a lever" example is actually a different usage of "to serve" — it means in the sense of using something to achieve another purpose, like a field serving as a parking lot. Joe Biden is not serving as the US president in the same sense. Popcornfud (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how False Title applies to this at all, as it has nothing to do with adding or substituting synonyms; it actually argues against excessive brevity. Wikipedia, just as the False Title essay points out, is, unlike newspapers, not constrained for space. Good/great writing is not only about writing in the simplest, most terse, manner.

I've found some past discussions here on WP about the matter, but nothing outside of WP that suggests there's something nefarious or dissembling or puffery-ish about use of serving as/serves as/served as etc.

The past discussions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#%22Serving_as%22_in_lede_of_politics_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marcia_Fudge/Archive_1#How_should_we_word_the_lead_sentence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_7

The last one there has the most discussion, and while I only skimmed through it, the sense seemed to be that it's not problematic per se, and certainly not harmful, but could be but isn't strictly puffery/PoV.

In my personal opinion which holds zero weight, it strikes me as over-policing of speech. Also of no weight at all but interesting, from etymonline, '[...] Sense of "be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function" is from early 14c.; that of "take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task" is from late 14c. [...]" - all of which seems to be its use in this context.

Amusingly, in its earliest usage in the late 12th century, it had the connotation of 'be a slave'. Quite the opposite of puffery! Fortunately, this is not the 12th century.

When people have asked me in the past what I do for a living, I can recall saying, for example, 'well, in one aspect of my job I served as [...], but I also served as [...]" when describing my job functions within a company, since in many of my jobs I wore multiple hats. Perhaps though I was overcompensating for a lack of self-esteem.

My sense - in terms of WP and non-rigid standards/practices - is that we should just do as we do with date formatting, BC/BCE, and other things - if it's one way in an article, leave it that way, if it's the other way, leave it that way. I don't think it needs wholesale replacement. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad — I linked to the wrong essay entirely. WP:ELEVAR is what I was thinking of. Sorry for the confusion. Popcornfud (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay. Just an essay, though, and one that provides no counterpoint to the problem of repetitive monotony, which makes it harder to actually maintain focus while reading a text. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition, there can be a middle ground, and there are definitely circumstances where "served as" is more informative to the reader than merely "was". A person can hold an office in name only and do nothing in it, and it can accurately be said that the person "was" whatever the title of the office was, but not that they "served as" the holder of that office. BD2412 T 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from elegant variation, we there is also avoidance of close paraphrasing, the need to phrase things differently to the source. (I agree that "served" is usually better than "was".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that @Edwardx: continues to purge the terms "serves", "served" etc from articles, but with no rationale, just 'copyedit'. I repeat my objections - however mild - to this, as there's no policy or guideline or even reliable source that I can find that states that those terms are bad/wrong/inappropriate/manipulative/disembling/deceitful/nefarious/must be purged from Wikipedia.

I, and probably most people, wouldn't get the impression that Jamie Dimon is a public servant if his bio noted that he 'serves as the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of JPMorgan Chase'. I see no difference between "serves as", "acts as", "works as". It means filling a role and doing a job. It's plain english.

It doesn't praise or denigrate to say "X served as regional manager" rather than "X was regional manager", or even "X acted as regional manager". WP:ELEVAR suggests avoidance of excessive use of variable wording, particularly where it introduces confusion. I don't think it argues that variety in terminology is to be avoided at all costs.

As I suggested before, if an editor runs across an existing article and it uses 'is/was' or 'serves/served' etc., leave it as you found it, as both are reasonable. Absent some guidance that these words are problematic, I think that's a fair compromise.

As there's no clear consensus above, perhaps someone can link to any reliable sources outside WP that argues that there's something inherently problematic with the terms. I can't find any. The terms are used broadly in business, politics, academia, research, activism, and more. We shouldn't be making up language rules based on whims. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Edwardx please stop making this change. It is the equivalent of changing “till” to “until”; both forms are acceptable, and you have better ways to spend your time than policing the way people use English. — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree with the edit on one level (per my comment earlier), I have only made such an edit myself as part of a larger and more significant edit (as far as I recall). In the context of the copy editing that can be done, it is quite a minor issue. To address the last sentence of Edwardx's post, I don't think there should be a campaign to remove the wording from all articles. I suggest to Edwardx that they focus rather on more worthwhile edits. Nurg (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]