Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

In a nutshell

Surely 'this page in a nutshell' violates the very rules set out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:9063:1100:DC72:8553:40FC:E65D (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What makes you say that? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@RoxySaunders:, I can't read their mind, but am guessing it's a failed joke on the pejorative "nuts" for someone with mental health issues. IP 2A02: if that wasn't your intention, feel free to weigh in again; and if it was, well, it kinda fell flat. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
"In a nutshell" is a metaphor, and it shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Clichés and idioms. (Also, that section probably ought to be renamed ==Clichés and metaphors==.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It's an appropriate metaphor even if it is a bit of a cliche. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The term is used for every policy and guideline. If you want to change that, go to the village pump. TFD (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: MOS:LABEL

Should the first paragraph of MOS:LABEL be changed to the following? –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and, if used at all, must comply with Neutral point of view and In-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Current text for reference:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Springee (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Poll

NB I have deleted an edit by Endwise because I think it violates WP:BLP. Please would other editors review my revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC) @Masem: Please give your view, as an admin, on my revert of Endwise’s edit. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • A couple weeks old, but since this was stylized in a way that drew my attention I checked it out: the supposed BLP violtaion was a hyperbolic hypothetical, so likely not a BLP violation; in any case, it would be better to (a) just remove the BLP violation rather than undo, and (b) not select the specific admin you want to evaluate your action (thankfully Masem is competent as an admin, so didn't take it up). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m puzzled by comments made at various times in this discussion that “cult” can be a factual statement. Cult includes: In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or its common interest in a particular personality, object, or goal. This sense of the term is controversial, having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia, and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. If the Wikipedia article on QAnon was to say in Wikivoice that QAnon is a cult, I would not get any information from this – do you mean it’s like Star Trek? or Jonestown? Bear in mind that I’m British, and genuinely know very little about QAnon. This is one of the reasons why I think that the use of labels should be discouraged: they are uninformative. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead of Cult is wrong. It's a word commonly used in modern Egyptology. Cult can certainly be a factual statement. It's also used in modern academic literature, eg Comprehending Cults The Sociology of New Religious Movements by Lorne L. Dawson and published by Oxford Academic Press, among many other publications. There probably are times when we need to attribute when calling something a cult, but there are definitely times when we can say it in Wikivoice. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, indeed – this is another possible meaning of the word. I didn’t mention it because I think that anyone who knows the meaning of the word “cult” in Egyptology would not think that this is the meaning in connection with QAnon. But this is, indeed, another possible source of confusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
There are multiple meanings for many words, but that doesn't make every subject "just an opinion". We usually provide clarification via a disambiguated wikilink (e.g., Cult following vs Doomsday cult) or explain it directly in the text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
This seems like an assumption of bad faith. Crossroads -talk- 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm curious how the comment by Silver seren is an assumption of bad faith, yet this comment by yourself minutes later is not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
the opposing editors don't want accurate reliably sourced labeling to be used that might inform our readers of the background of those subjects when relevant to the article topics. This is assuming bad faith on the part of the ‘opposing editors’(of which I am one). Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
And you're suggesting that that is more of an assumption of bad faith than Crossroads' own If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim that someone being an X-phobe is a fact and not an opinion? Colour me deeply skeptical. Newimpartial (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Crossroads’s remark is not aimed at specific editors: Silver seren’s remark is aimed at me, amongst others. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You don't think Crossroads' statement, If this is taken away, POV pushers will simply claim... is aimed at specific editors (namely, those Crossroads has previously accused of activist editing within the gender and sexuality area)? It you do not see this as aimed at me, amongst others, then I question your acumen, Sweet6970. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think.... Sweet6970 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC) clarified Sweet6970 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Huh? The question at hand here is whether use of accurate reliably sourced labeling is valid in articles. Those who support the proposed change believe that, when carefully used in compliance with INTEXT and NPOV (which explicitly prevent any cases where a label encodes a statement of opinion), it is acceptable to use words that some editors consider value-laden.
Those who oppose the proposed change agree with what is currently encoded in LABEL, i.e. they believe that accurate reliably sourced labeling is always invalid in articles and should not ever be used, even when compliant with INTEXT (not expressing an opinion). The only editorializing Silverseren inserts here is arguing that labels can be informative to readers, which to me doesn't seem to be that bold of claim. Srey Srostalk 15:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Simply because RSes routinely use a label or any other type of characterization for a topic does not mean we must state that as a fact in wikivoice without attribution. There are reasonable conditions where this would be reasonable, but this should after thoroughly demonstrating that this usage is throughout sources, not cherry picked from a handful, and a product of enduring coverage of the subject and not something from a recent burst of coverage (eg the case for calling Jonestown from decades agos a cult but not the very recent Qanon). The problem is that we don't have any such guidiance on how this should be evaluated or considered in any PAG (its not in NPOV or INTEXT), and it is the fact that we lack this type of guidance is why we have issues around cases like with the anti-trans section above. This is stuff that needs to be considered at NPOV or INTEXT, because it logical to have this allowances spelled out once demonstrated through a thorough source survey, and to make it a bar that must be met so that we still default to requiring attribution. --Masem (t) 02:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
A confounding factor here is that nobody here seems to agree on what is or isn't a value-laden label, and so we keep getting into these circles in which people who support the change argue that LABEL prohibits usage of some word in articles, and then people who oppose the change say "oh, but that isn't a LABEL". A great example of this is neo-Nazi, which has remained on the blacklist in the stable version of LABEL for years yet is used all over Wikipedia when it matches the consensus of reliable sources.Srey Srostalk 16:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@SreySros, I think that an example in the RFC itself might help. At the risk of Godwinning the RFC, I think this is clear enough:
  1. The first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) says, and should say, it's a neo-Nazi organization. That's a fact, not an opinion. It is the overwhelming view of all reliable sources, and it can be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE without WP:INTEXT attribution, exactly like the article has done for the last 15 years.
  2. The first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) says, and should say, that it's a neo-Nazi organization. However, that sentence must include WP:INTEXT attribution to explain who, exactly, assigns this value-laden label to that group (e.g., "According to political scholars and mainstream media"). Editors at that article have been wrong for the last 15 years.
The current version of LABEL requires that every single use of value-laden labels, explicitly including neo-Nazi, cult, denialist, pseudoscience, etc. be provided with INTEXT attribution. The current version – unlike NPOV and INTEXT – admits to no exceptions to its rule requiring in-text attribution. Anyone who actually supports the current version, as it is written, in practice is an editor who supports changing the first sentence of the article about National Socialist Movement (United States). And if you think you oppose this change to LABEL, but you think the first sentence of National Socialist Movement (United States) is okay without in-text attribution, then I suggest that you review the exact wording of both versions again.
@XOR'easter, would that clarify "the difference is between "in-text attribution" and "in-text attribution"," as you mention above? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is a clarifying example. XOR'easter (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The current text explicitly allows for use of "pseudoscience" in wikivoice. I explained this above. And terms like neo-Nazi that are well-defined should simply be removed from the list; this isn't justification for removing all caution against other terms. Crossroads -talk- 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The current text of WTW says nothing about terms being well-defined or not – if you wish to propose such a criteria be added feel free to do so, but no reasonable reading of the old (current) version of MOS:LABEL would support a conclusion that "well-defined" terms are somehow exempt from the restriction. Srey Srostalk 00:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The current wording, of course, has no force as written (with respect to attribution) because it cannot override core policy. For that matter, it isn't even consistent with other advice on this same page, such as the use of less absolute wording only one paragraph below in the same context - and then there is also INTEXT, and probably other pages as well. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious, to the extreme if necessary, when a term may be controversial. However, describing this in terms of an absolute prohibition is simply mistaken. Sunrise (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Sunrise notified the Fringe theories noticeboard so per WP:APPNOTE ("... It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself ...") I am leaving this note. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that, I'd forgotten and I agree this is a case where having a note is probably better. Sunrise (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: It's the other way around. It's the current version that requires in-text attribution without exception (in which case use in-text attribution), and this proposal is attempting to change that. The proposal to "comply with" WP:In-text attribution does not have such a requirement, because that page explicitly allows for cases where no attribution is used. It is probably not the best wording (perhaps a phrase like "the guidance at" could be added), but I think that can be fixed afterwards, and since this is a relatively minimalist change it is less likely to raise additional issues in a way that derails the RfC. Sunrise (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Alexbrn, it really is the other way around. The old wording orders editors to "use in-text attribution", with no exceptions for articles like the one you mention. ⌘ Command+F on this page for the word Godwin and read the example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm in wonder you think I'm cool enough to be using a Mac! I can now see the intent, but the drafting implies 100% the opposite; "comply with" WP:INTEXT to me means "use the mechanism described therein". I could get behind the proposal if that was ironed-out. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Masem, while many of us share NOTNEWS-type concerns, your reading of what that requires - in terms of distance and sourcing - is not widely held. We have cases like Lauren Southern with several years' distance from key events and quality academic sourcing, where nonetheless a small minority of editors like yourself seem to want *much* more distance and sourcing than policy or community consensus actually requires. Newimpartial (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Four to five years (from 2017) is in no way "several years". We're talk 10 to 20, at least. And based on the responses here, it is clear I'm very much not alone here in these concerns (and that's not considering when we get responses from "the peanut gallery") The attitude that is expressed by editors like you make Wikimedia involved in the current cultural wars when we are supposed to be sticking a disinterested view and simply reporting in an impartial voice. This is the crux of every problem here, editors writing in a manner that , backed by the tone in RSes, are trying to back righting great wrongs since media is critical of such people or groups, WP should be able to too, but that's not how it works. We can discuss this media view, but we cannot take it as fact in the short term. --Masem (t) 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, conflating several years with one to two decades is completely unreasonable. If we were to take that approach with any BLP entry, or even any non-BLP yet controversial event, then we wouldn't have any content more recent than 2002-2012.
I also want to address something said earlier; Even in the case where there's only one real documentable side of a controversy, we should still describe that as a attributed viewpoint, and not conclude as fact in wikivoice. That is a near perfect definition for false balance. If there is only one side, reflected in what we consider reliable sources, then to do as suggested would result in promotion of fringe theories or views, if not outright conspiracy theories in Wikivoice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say that we can't include recent content, just that in considering how it should be included we should be far more cautious, consider material to be more primary than secondary and written from a non-disinterested view, so that our summary should consider those possible biases and work to write neutrally around them. For all purposes, that means writing with attribution, not omitting material, though we have tended to make articles become laundry lists of negative content sourced to cherry-picked materials at times, rather than focusing on more broadly shared opinions.
There's a difference in how things like conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are handled compared to simply things like subjective labels, in that there are usually objective or other non-subjective metrics to demonstrate why they are conspirary theories or pseudoscience. And thus I would agree when such items are suitable demonstrated as false, treating them with doubt is creating a false balance. Whereas with purely subjective views, there's no objective evidence to demand one side (likely the side represented in RS) to be taken as "right". We can present that side as the majority view in the short term, but it should still be presented as a viewpoint, and that in no way is a false balance; that's taking a disinterested approach in writing about viewpoints on a topic. Absence of any contesting viewpoint in RSes does not mean that a viewpoint is lacking any contested view, and we have to use both common sense and broader knowledge beyond what our RSes simply say to be able to summarize what the RSes say in a appropriately neutral, impartial and dispassionate tone. --Masem (t) 04:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Masem, you may be not alone in how you would like to treat the current century in terms of RECENTISM, but your view is certainly not supported by very many editors, by the WP community, or by WP:RECENTISM, the relevant (?) explanatory supplement.
And while you may avow a difference in how things like conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are handled compared to simply things like subjective labels, I think you are avowing a distinction that you and your allies do not make in practice. I believe it was Springee I've seen to argue that people speading (demonstrably false) conspiracy theories (and labelled very generally as "conspiracy theorists" by high-quality sources) should not be referred to as such in wikivoice. In the case of Lauren Southern also, we have a figure making the best-known documentary endorsing the white nationalist Great replacement conspiracy theory, as well-souced in quality - including academic - sources, but editors invoke MANDY details as justification to remove "white nationalist". I don't know how you intend to maintain a distinction between conspiracy theory and labels, but what actually happens is that many editors use the existing text to support edits against NPOV that would have Wikipedia present facts as though they were (contested) opinions, in cases where they are neither opinions nor contested. What we are actually dealing with in many of these cases is value-laden facts, and the effort some editors are making in this discussion to deny that reality is nearly mind-blowing to me. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue is not to remove labels when they have been used frequently, but when we are still in the realm of RECENTISM (as definitely would be the case of Southern) and where it is not clear if a label is near-universally used (a simple google news search shows only about 10% of the articles related to Southern include "white nationalist" but this is a quick and dirty check and by far not meant as conclusive), then we should not be rushing to state it as fact, but instead have some form of attribution, which for Southern would likely be phrase "broadly considered as a white nationalist" in a brief statement. That still captures the DUE aspect but keeps WP in the appropriate dispassionate, impartial tone that reflects the frequency of the label in the sources.
I do agree that LABEL should not be used to remove attributed labels that have such high frequency of usage as in the case of Southern, simply that they should be handled as attributed viewpoints rather than fact. But this again points back to the fact that NPOV should have something that describes thresholds related to when a frequently shared viewpoint is DUE for inclusion and how to summarize attribution without having to name 20+ sources, and then the threshold and conditions when we can forgo treating that as a viewpoint and state it as wikivoice. This would satisfy this LABEL issue as well since it defers to the NPOV policy aspect. --Masem (t) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Some editors seem determined to prejudice the reader by including (sourced) labels in articles on controversial subjects, or they find it more important to apply the conclusory label than to provide actual information to the reader. The reader deserves to learn the underlying facts that may have caused a preponderance of sources to apply the label. The ideal revision to MOS would make it clear that such labels are a uniquely uninformative type of POV editing, substituting conclusions for facts, and that such labels should not appear in Wikivoice. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    I believe the relevant place to make that argument would be at WT:NPOV, since it would seem to involve a change in the (core) NPOV policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Nothing there that isn't supported by sources, but I don't think that's where we want to be going in articles. Let's not give them a sea lion leg to stand on. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As I see it, this is about closing a loophole where this conflicts with NPOV. This style guideline currently requires attribution for labels where content policies do not (regardless of coverage), allowing [sea lions] to argue that we cannot describe things in Wikipedia's voice even when reliable sourcing is unanimous. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It is definitely a point of debate on WP and which needs to be explored more at NPOV when and where it is appropriate to consider when attribution can be dropped for when viewpoints have near-universal agreements. This is very much a point of division across the board. Just as it can be used by those that want to whitewash negative information away, the lack of specificity of how we should handle such cases also allows some editors to push on every negative coatrack they can find onto certain topics which is also against the theory of NPOV. We need to find the point of balance first at NPOV. --Masem (t) 19:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, you're aware that WP:LABEL entirely prohibits using "terrorist" without attribution even when there is consensus among reliable sources? –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The guideline says, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," which is the phrasing used in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.The term terrorist for example is used without intext attribution several times in the Terrorism article. In particular, it would be justified to ignore the guideline if following it meant violating a policy. The problem with the term terrorist is that it is used by governments to describe enemy insurgents or even states they dislike, while allied insurgents are referred to as freedom fighters. So for example the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement was categorized as a terrorist group by the Bush administration when it sought foreign support on the war on terror, but was reclassified by the Trump administration when China became seen as an adversary. As explained by an article in FP, the moves "were not motivated by ETIM’s reality but instead were largely about the U.S. position on other issues."[1] TFD (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Re: Having a bachelor's degree in journalism from Columbia and working for the New York Times does not mean one's opinions are as authoritative as someone who has a PHD in the subject, teaches at a university and has published academic articles and textbooks - a number of participants in this discussion have opposed the use of terms in wikivoice in specific cases - citing - even when there is no dispute in RS about the applicability of a term and even when quality, academic sources use the term about the relevant person or organization. This debate isn't especially about the role of journalists... Newimpartial (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Re: there is no dispute in RS, per your own stretched definition of what "no dispute" means, which, guess what, is disputed. Since you're bringing up content disputes, why not come right out and say what label it is this guideline is preventing you from adding to what article? And disclose what that person/group actually did or said that prompted those sources to use those labels. Since you're bringing up other participants have "opposed" in "specific cases" - what reason could there be for concealing the specific facts of those specific cases of which you refer to? If your depiction be truly accurate, surely the facts would speak for themselves, yea? 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:1449:4A9E:866:5F64 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The instances most on my mind at the moment are "alt right" and "white nationalist" in relation to Lauren Southern - the former of which I support in wikivoice and the latter of which I support with attribution. Springee has opposed both labels, although academic sourcing is available for both and no RS dispute "alt right" in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
But as I've suggested above, a rough preliminary source survey (google news) shows that only about 10% of the sources that talk about Southern support those labels, which is definitely against using those labels as fact. And of course, as we're talking something only 5-some years, trying to take commentary and opinion as fact is also against the concept of RECENTISM. If we were 20 years out, where Southern was no longer in the news, then maybe we can consider that as fact but as long she is still relatively a news topic, RECENTISM applies.
I will say that we do need to avoid the MANDY argument that Springee keeps bringing up. At least in the state of her current article, there are a few soundbites of her own words (reported by RSes) that explain her stance, so we are not begging the MANDY question. But I will still point that one must remember that the scope of allowed RSes expand when RSOPINION is considered in articles like this. Obviously there are still many cavaets about whose opinions are included but this doesn't require the original source to be an RS itself, and that means it can include opinions from recognized people that may side with Southern. Whether such sources exist, that would require a source survey (the same that should be done to try to justify what attribution to use for the labels). Remember that per NPOV we cannot write in a judgmental voice, and that's what your asking us to do by these conditions. If you can prove that's the only way to write about Southern well after she's no longer in the news, then you're good, but until you can, we have to take it out of wikivoice. --Masem (t) 04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
In general we can't draw conclusions from what sources do not say. This is the "most sources talking about the Earth don't mention that it's round, so Wikipedia cannot say that" argument. Sources sometimes don't say things because it's obvious, sometimes because they don't consider that aspect of the topic, and so on. In Wikipedia terms, if something is not in serious dispute, it's a true fact per WP:ASSERT – though of course WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
We as editors should be aware of what the larger situation is around a topic including what positions and other factors are happening that may be stuff we cannot document or include due to RS issues. Specifically we need to be aware that with the current left-leaning bias of the media that a rather non-trivial proportion of right-leaning views have been left off the table. So just because there seems to be no disagreement in the mainstream and reliable sources, if we know that there is this disagreement in a non-fringe manner, we should not pretend there is no disagreement out there. That's again why RECENTISM is important here because as time progresses, we can look back at events from sources that are less disinterested and thus will better just what views are the most important to discuss. --Masem (t) 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Masem, how would we know that there is this disagreement in a non-fringe manner, unless reliable sources tell us so?
Also, your version of RECENTISM appears to amount to, "in the future, scholars will interpret the sources from the early 21st century has having a left-wing bias". That looks like WP:CRYSTAL to me, not RECENTISM properly understood. Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Because we are not sitting blind in an ivory tower, we know there's other viewpoints out there on ongoing and current controversies or figures that are controversial, even if RSes are mum on them. This is why we cannot, while such figures are presently in the news, blindly accept viewpoints reported by RSes as facts in wikivoice regardless of absence of alternate views. The point on RECENTISM is related - once we're well beyond the point that the topic is actively in the news or a point of controversy, we can then consider what the most recent sources, displaced from the time of that point of controversy, has said about it, and consider if they agree on certain viewpoints. If at that point, they all agree on the use of labels and omit any other viewpoints, then we're probably in the clear to use the label in wikivoice without attribution. --Masem (t) 13:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

((Od}As I understand it, this is an argument that WP editors should be paying attention to views that are not recognized within RS (or that are acknowledged with RS as false information), should perform OR assessments of these views as non-fringe and should then insist on attribution for judgements about which all RS agree. Do you believe there is some policy basis for this, Masem? I don't see any grounding for it in RECENTISM, and it seems to fly directly against WP:V, NPOV and NOR core policies.

Honestly, this feels the same as the argument new editors raise every few months at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory: that all the RS are wrong, the non-RS sources are right and WP's core policies should be turned on their head because certain editors feel qualified to second-guess the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's all factors under the tone and style required under WP:IMPARTIAL. I do want to stress that the wording of IMPARTIAL suggests that we include all viewpoints, but this is not what I'm getting at with these non-reported viewpoints. (I am absolutely not arguing for forcing the false balance or the like.) If we know they exist in non-fringe proportions beyond what RSes say, we should not be deeming what the RSes say as fact, and thus just add the necessary attribution or some type of wholesale state ("widely considered", etc.) to keep that viewpoint out of Wikivoice and stay within the bounds of IMPARTIAL. Heck, even in the case where we are aware of absolutely no counterview to a viewpoint repeated often in mainstream sources, but it still remains a viewpoint on a current ongoing story, we should still be careful and use some type of attribution in the short term. It's just this attitude that "if it doesn't exist in RSes, it doesn't exist for purposes of Wikipedia" that is harmful - we need to be fully cognizant of the events of ongoing controversies even if we're not going to include them, because treating RSes as immutable words-of-god in the midst of the controversy is not appropriate at all. To be impartial we need to be aware of where the RSes sit in the larger picture. --Masem (t) 14:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything in IMPARTIAL suggesting that WP should take into account perspectives that are not reliably documented as existing. This seems to me to reflect a rather serious epistemological question: how can we be fully cognizant of the events of ongoing controversies beyond what can be found in RS? Is this a call to WP:OR? Personally, my epistemological realism leads me to question whether this larger picture exists at all, and to doubt whether it would be in any way knowable even if it were to exist. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Basically, this is a position against NPOV (to reflect "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."), and to my find fails to show an understanding of what an encyclopedia fundamentally is. We are just a handy summary of what's been published on topics; not an attempt to unearth "reality" (even Masem's "reality"). Franky, such obsessive pushing of this anti-Wikipedia stance, in multiple fora, is I think becoming disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
All this comes down to is the question: when can we express labels in Wikivoice with attribution? I agree there are conditions when this can happen and that is partially dependent on when a label is used by a significant proportion of RSes, but there are other factors that should be considered, which is what this debate has been about. Core is that we should never rush to wikivoice-label any topic in the short-term regardless the number of sources that do it, but that's absolutely appropriate in the long-term. --Masem (t) 14:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Masem, are you disputing Springee's conclusion above, Note that most of the sources I found called her either far or alt right in their own voice? If so, what was your methodology-I can't seem to find it described. Newimpartial (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Brief phone reply here. Masem, to be clear I'm my comments related to MANDY and not specific to LABEL. I replied to a MANDY comment in a separate paragraph with a separate signature and indentation when commenting about a LABEL question. NI missed that and assumed I was associating the two. I'm not. NI is also not doing a great job with presenting my arguments. They have taken a single, brief edit and taken it as a complete scope of my views. NI also didn't mention that they argued and edited for including both terms in wiki voice but I will grant they came to the correct conclusion on white nationalism after a long talk page discussion. As for alt-right and far-right if we take them to mean the same thing they are both very common but not universal. I think they were about evenly split. While overlapping I don't think they mean the same thing per Wikipedia articles. Personally I do think it would be better to attribute all of them but I'm not overly interested in that fight and far right isn't as value laden as white nationalist. Finally, NI it might be helpful if you showed some other example cases. I believe you have been involved in some LGBTQ cases, would any of those make good examples? Springee (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
While not strictly a LABEL-based discussion, the argumentation here, from last year, about Graham Linehan's relationship to transgender issues is probably one of the more relevant ones. There was also this 2020 RfC on a heading within the same article concerning the same issue; I doubt that it in particular is worth editors' reading time, but it does include LABEL debate among its many, many digressions, so I would feel remiss not to point it out. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Going back to a core part of LABEL, we should not be using labels in the first place if only a handful of sources use the term, while it is clear on the other side that if after time, nearly all sources use the label, we should be able to use that label in wikivoice w/o attribution. There's thresholds when the use of a label with attribution becomes appropriate in the first place, and another when we can say it without attribution, but all that depends on thoroughly going through the sources and seeing how frequently sources that are in-depth about the topic use that label. That's the methodology that I suggest needs to be done, and I think that differs from what Springee has said, which is saying that for sources that do use a label, they use one of two labels, but that doesn't account for the frequency. --Masem (t) 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to address this specific point of this reply. It's just this attitude that "if it doesn't exist in RSes, it doesn't exist for purposes of Wikipedia" that is harmful - we need to be fully cognizant of the events of ongoing controversies even if we're not going to include them, because treating RSes as immutable words-of-god in the midst of the controversy is not appropriate at all. That seems to fly in the face of what WP:RS states at the end of the first paragraph: If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. And also what is stated in WP:REPUTABLE: This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
If a reliable source for a piece of information does not exist, then we are beholden, rightly or wrongly, by policy to whatever reliable sources say on the subject. If you feel that is harmful to the project as a whole, then opening an RfC to change this policy is the only way to address that harm. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Nothing I've said goes against those; it is simply recognizing when we should defer to using attribution when we know that broadly there is material that is of controversy going on at the current time. I've said above that we do not have to force the false balance if one side of the controversy is only covered outside the RSes (which is what you are inferring that I suggest we do). Simply that we should be be blinding ourselves to an ivory tower of only the acceptable RSes and assuming their viewpoint is the only viewpoint that exists as to treat it as fact in describing a current controversy. Far down the road in time, when there's no current controversy on the topic, then we can take the more ivory tower approach. --Masem (t) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia takes the side of established scholarship. Views not in accord with that must be contextualized as deviant. Alexbrn (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally views scholarship as the most reliable sourcing, it doesn't only use scholarship. If that was the standard many articles would need to be removed as lacking sourcing. Anyway, I don't think Masem's position violates the RS guideline. Certainly we have sources we consider stronger than others but RS also says context matters. An unfortunate part of RSP is the idea that we can neatly classify all soruces as reliable or not. In actuality we should be spending more time asking if a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. Certainly a source like National Review may be very good for providing a dissenting view or arguing why a label shouldn't apply. However, over time too many people tried to use so-so sources for questionable claims and we decided those sources just aren't any good. It's one thing to say we aren't going to use such sources to interpret climate change data. It's quite a bit different to say we don't need to listen to them when deciding if a new law is "anti-gay" or not or to what degree. Springee (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
WP in fact does not take sides. We report the majority views per DUE/WEIGHT, which is not in question, but we report that as a viewpoint of the majority, and require substantial coverage of minority or fringe viewpoints from RS to include those as well per FRINGE, but per NPOV and INTEXT this all should be attributed as viewpoints.
That said, and a fundamental issue at play, is the language at YESPOV, the bullet that starts "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." That is, to this point, is at some point, we can agree that the statement "Jonestown was a cult." can be said in Wikivoice without attribution since by this point in this, that is an "uncontested and uncontroversal statement", but in counterpoint, we can't say "Qanon is a cult." in wikivoice w/o attribution due to the contested nature of that claim. And that's why its important to understand that contested claims can come from sources that are beyond our RSes, and not just limited to what RSes we have picked, as well as common sense of what are contested claims. That's also why RECENTISM is important, as to wait for current controversial aspects to die down and wait for retrospectives that can look back at that point in time in a uncontested manner. The problem at this point is that NPOV does not speak at all to how to make this call, and that's what is absolutely needed , because far too often we have editors rushing to make claims that there's no uncontested claims in short-term coverage of controverial topics, as well as editors that are trying to challenge long-term topics that are no longer considered controversial. --Masem (t) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Masem, by now we have topics from the first two decades of the 21st century in which there is no dispute among RS about the facts, including facts about such characteristics as "white nationalism". We have quality academic sources about many of these topics. Your contention that our articles should attribute such labels where they are not contested simply runs afoul of NPOV and specifically the requirement not to present facts as though they were opinions. Your apparent supposition that we should not do so on the grounds of RECENTISM - that facts on which all RS agree might change, so we should attribute them - is a misreading of both RECENTISM and consensus reality itself. We are, in fact, obliged to follow the reliable sources rather than our own private intuitions about what the verdict of history is most likely to be, per WP:CRYSTAL. Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
But there's the other part of the equation about labels, and that's how frequently they are used as well. Again, if only a small proportion of sources (even if they are academic) use a label or subscribe to a viewpoint, that should not be presented as a widely-held view.
And you are completely misreading my point on RECENTISM; it is not that opinions may change, but in the long-term, we can rely on sources that are far more dispassionate and impartial about events to be able to identify what were majority viewpoints (or a singular majority viewpoint) that we would rely on. The sourcing in the short-term, including some academic sources from social sciences, cannot be immediately taken as being dispassionate or impartial, and thus we should be in any rush to take those sources as fact in the short-term. Or in the case where there is no further cover years out but well after any controversy over a topic has died down, then its going to be less of a POV for WPians to do impartial, dispassionate summaries of the majority viewpoints from the material presented at the time of the controvery, and if that includes identifying that there was only one major take ("X was a label") to use without attribution, that should be fine. But all this should be spelled in detail in NPOV before touching LABEL to prevent both POV pushers as well as POV whitewashers. --Masem (t) 02:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps this is an overly simplistic question. If wiki policy trumps wiki guidelines, and the wiki policy is as you're implying incorrect, what is to stop the POV pushers from already ignoring the guidelines because policy already says otherwise? Conversely, if guidelines are explanatory for how to interpret policy, then why is fixing a guidelines from being out of step with the policy it is citing so much of an issue to fix? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Changing LABEL to "comply" with NPOV doesn't fix the underlying problem that we do not give any kind advice of when we can take a majority viewpoint as fact in wikivoice at NPOV or INTEXT, meaning that both POV pushers and whitewashers will still argue over the issues. In other words, this is bailing water out of a sinking boat rather than trying to plug the hole to stop it from sinking in the first place. --Masem (t) 02:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding it is not that opinions may change, but in the long-term, we can rely on sources that are far more dispassionate and impartial about events to be able to identify what were majority viewpoints (or a singular majority viewpoint) that we would rely on — maybe? But it's certainly not guaranteed. One could just as well say that history will remember a majority viewpoint as the only viewpoint. (Only specialists in the history of astronomy recall the Tychonic universe...) Impartiality may or may not grow with time, and passions may or may not fade. Guessing either way goes against WP:CRYSTAL. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There are certainly some controversies that have gone on for decades or longer, such as the Israeli Palestini issue. In such cases we should still recognize that issues are contested and thus make sure to write majority viewpoints with necessary attribution. This should b our default approach to any topic of contro easy, with RECENTISM saying that we should that caution to not rush to judge who is right or wrong in short term , but there are some topics that will outlive their controversial nature beyond the extent of RECENTISM that we should handle in the same manner. The CRYSTAL problem would be jumping to conclude that we should speak a majority viewpoint in wikivoice without attribution before the period suggested by RECENTISM is over. --Masem (t) 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are equating apples to cucumbers here, Masem. In the case of Israel-Palestine we have - and have always had - reliable sources documenting that there are multiple (and somewhat irreconcilable) perspectives on the dispute. You are saying that - based on a "reading" of RECENTISM where both the language and the intent of that guideline disappear behind your own interpolations - we should treat topics that are undisputed in the reliable sources as though they were disputed until you are convinced that the RS have achieved a long-run, IMPARTIAL perspective. If you can't see the CRYSTAL in that, you should stay out of drug dens, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are still missing the point, in that we should be far more careful of how we incorporate viewpoints, even if there is seemingly only a majority view as reported by RSes, in the short term near the event of a topic, and once we pass that short term (something like 5 to 10 years depending) when there are no heated passions about the controversy, we can start looking to see if it makes sense to express that majority viewpoint in unattributed wikivoice. Whether that's due to. More recent sources that give us that support, or the need for us to review the older sources, it doesn't matter, just as long as it is not done in the short term. --Masem (t) 18:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"Ableist" language being "corrected" on dozens of articles (WP:EUPH?)

I've noticed that Smasongarrison is currently going through a plethora of articles and changing the word "suffered" to "had", strangely while citing WP:EUPH, which states

If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that.

Are they interpreting this correctly? Do we have to write "she had a nervous breakdown" instead of "she suffered a nervous breakdown"? ili (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Have to" is a strong term here. "Am allowed to" and "it is a good idea to, if you can be so bothered" are better. After all, if you don't want to improve the articles as Smasongarrison is doing, you don't have to. They seem to be doing a fine job without you. --Jayron32 16:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, these changes seem to be in line with a clear WP style to avoid certain passive phrases. --Masem (t) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to change the tag to tone rather than euph if that would make ILIL feel better about it. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I do think it's typically more in keeping with an encyclopedic tone to say someone "had a nervous breakdown" than "suffered" it, though I don't understand how "suffered" is a euphemism. Even so, there are still probably contexts where "suffered" would be more explanatory and fitting than "had", for example: despite suffering from an injury to her knee, she was still able to push through and win the race would probably be better than despite having injured her knee three weeks prior, ... as it implies she was still suffering from the knee injury during the race. Endwise (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that there may be times when "suffered" is appropriate, but many if not most of the times when it is being used is to grant emotional weight to a situation where we probably shouldn't be doing so. This is especially true because suffering is about a person's internal mental state, which in nearly all cases, we cannot assess. To say, for example, that someone "suffers from diabetes" means you're reading their mind on what diabetes makes them feel. If you just say someone "has diabetes" there are no such assumptions made. That's a clear improvement. It isn't that "suffers" should never be used, but it should be used much less than it is, and these changes noted above are all spot on. --Jayron32 14:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I fully agree that "had" is almost always better than "suffered", and even in the case above Masem was correct to say that you could still probably work around it instead. Endwise (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There's still a better tone with that example, being something like "she won the race despite having a knee injury". --Masem (t) 17:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Largely said by others now, but ... Smasongarrison's edits seem largely constructive to my eye, based on a spot check. It's worth differentiating between conditions/disorders like cerebral palsy and e.g. a snowboarding accident in which someone broke their ankle. Most of the arguments I've seen about avoiding ableist language are more about the former than the latter. Still, whether we cite this guideline or something like WP:TONE, "X broke her ankle in a snowboarding accident" sounds more encyclopedic to me than "X suffered a broken ankle in a snowboarding accident". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the instinct to move toward more plain language is a good one, but we need to be careful to avoid introducing ambiguities. e.g. here "He suffered a spinal injury while climbing in 1985." was changed to "While climbing in 1985, he had a spinal injury." The first formulation makes it clear that the injury occurred while he was climbing. But the latter could be read as him climbing in 1985 despite having a (pre-existing) spinal injury. Something like "he incurred a spinal injury" would probably be clearer in a case like this. Colin M (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Or, even better, "he injured his spine". --Jayron32 16:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Good suggestions/points! Smasongarrison (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Yet"

Is this a weasel word when used at Persecution of Hindus? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Some were a bit weasely, some was just not well written. I removed most of the yets. The two remaining seem correct. David Lorenzen asserts that during the Islamic rule period there was state-sponsored persecution against Hindus, yet it was sporadic and directed mostly at Hindu religious monuments. I would have used though there, but it seems fine. The raids caused suffering, yet also rallied the Islamic faithfuls and weakened the infidel prince by weakening his standing among his Hindu subjects. Yet seems correct there, although infidel prince seems not great. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the two, I was thinking "while also". I think I'll change the infidel prince. Should we include "yet" the MOS? Doug Weller talk 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
As a word to watch? I don't think it's any worse than "though" or "while also" or any other qualifier. I'm not familiar with the topic area, is "infidel prince" an NPOV way to refer to someone in context? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Depends on the context. But in fact the source says "an infidel prince" so I changed it to that. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request

Editors are invited to comment on the article "Sacred Cod"'s use of style at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1. ɱ (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing "gave his/her life" to "gave their life"

I believe that in the Euphemisms section, "gave his/her life' should be changed to "gave their life". I tried to edit the page to change this, but my edit was reverted. However, I do not believe it should have been reverted, as the revert reason doesn't make sense to me; transgender and pronoun non-conforming people can die, just as cisgender and pronoun-conforming people can. The point of using "their" isn't to say that everyone is transgender, the point is gender neutrality and inclusivity; changing it to "gave their life" would not drastically alter the point that the section is trying to get across, but I believe it would better to be fully neutral and inclusive by using "their". Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -HaiFire3344 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to use a gender neutral term when someone clearly identifies as a gender. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't look as though HaiFire3344 is asking this in relation to a specific article, but within the context of clarifying the MOS. How about "gave his/her/their life" instead? That way you keep the specificity in practice for when a subject's gender is known and is inclusive for when it is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that I have no objection to, although it's probably unnecessary clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
"His/her/their" is fine. My point was that an article might contain "gave his life" and it might contain "gave her life". Only when the subject is transgender is the article going to say "gave their life", which is, yes, another possibility. But the point of even "gave his/her life" isn't to imply that an article will literally have "his/her", which, if it appeared in an article, I would also collapse to "their". I'm going to stop now because I feel like I need to clarify what I mean further but somehow I think I'll just muddle it more if it isn't already clear. Largoplazo (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I get the sentiment, but listing now three different pronouns is distracting from the actual point. In fact, I'd argue that listing the two was also distracting. Since these are just examples, and we don't actually list multiple pronouns in text, why not just replace it with, say, "her"? Nobody is going to think the point doesn't apply to another gender. Crossroads -talk- 00:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In that case, why not "their"? Certainly "gave their life" is more commonly used than either of the explicitly gendered terms, at least in the UK and Ireland. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In an article about a male soldier, Colonel Joe Peterson, I would not write that "Peterson gave their life". The number of people about whom I would write that is a small minority and, for that reason, in addition to the fact that "their" is ambiguous, is not the best example if we are to choose only one of them. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Certainly "gave their life" is more commonly used than either of the explicitly gendered terms Ngrams disagree.
Anyways, I agree with Crossroads's point. I'm going to boldly change it to use a single pronoun. In the hopes of avoiding any appearance of bias, I'm going to look at the revision id of this edit, and will use "his" if it's odd, and "her" if it's even. Colin M (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?

The community has reached consensus that using the word "today" is inappropriate when discussing information that is dated or time-dependent.

However, there is no consensus about categorically banning the use of "today" for information that is very unlikely to change, such as SnowFire's example: The 49th parallel border established between Canada and the United States at the Oregon Treaty remains in place today. Kusma and Nabla agreed with SnowFire on this point, and no subsequent comments seemed to specifically disagree. SnowFire's comment came on 15 June, after which there was relatively little discussion, so there is no affirmative consensus either way on his point.

There was no specific consensus about whether, or how, MOS:RELTIME/MOS:DATED/WP:ASOF should be changed. As closer, my sense is that those guidelines are already consistent with consensus at this discussion (see e.g. MOS:DATED, WP:PRECISELANG). However, if anyone thinks that guidelines need to be changed (for example, to strengthen the language a bit), they may modify those guidelines and footnote the change to this RfC. (I would urge against taking this too far – it seems to me like adding a whole paragraph about this may be excessive instruction creep.)

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This RfC concerns List of countries and dependencies by population.

This discussion asks 2 questions:
  1. Given that an electronic encyclopedia or gazetteer is a permanent work in progress over longer periods of time, how appropriate is the relative time expression 'today' in the context of this list article.
  2. Depending on the outcome of the opinions to Q1 , should 'today' be replaced by 'as of [date]', or another suitable explanation that the dates in the table might not be as up-to-date as inferred by the use of 'today'?

Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This RfC concerns a current case in one article, List of countries and dependencies by population. However, depending on the discussion the outcome may have implications for other articles, and/or the Manual of Style. It is also possible that such a guideline already exists but which may be hard to find, unclear or ambiguous, or simply not known to or not recognised by some edititors.

(Previous and/or major contributors to the article and its talk page and parent projects have been notified of this discussion in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS)

Guidelines

Other (for this RFC):

Issue

List of countries and dependencies by population is a fairly high traffic article with 960 page watchers and 529,816 page views in the last 60 days (as of 6 June 2022). This does not mean however that the article is regularly updated. The page has been edited by 12 users since since the beginning of 2019. The lead paragraph closes with:

Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion today. –(The bolding is mine)

One editor added a ((when?)) tag to the sentence. This was followed by another editor replacing 'today' with: as of 2019.. This was then reverted back to 'today' by another editor with the edit summary: Nope, this is a population clock, so the number is as per today. Every day.

The main section of this list article is its table. Whether or not the populations are automatically updated by the 'population clock' sources such as for example in the template ((data Brazil|poptoday 1)), the table column 'Date' shows many different years for the 243 sets of data in the table, going back to the oldest of 2015. According to their dates of retrieval, many of the referenced sources in the table do not appear to be from 'today' , or even from 2022.

This discussion asks 2 questions

1. Given that an electronic encyclopedia or gazetteer is a permanent work in progress over longer periods of time, how appropriate is the relative time expression 'today' in the context of this list article.

2. Depending on the outcome of the opinions to Q1 , should 'today' be replaced by 'as of [date]', or another suitable explanation that the dates in the table might not be as up-to-date as inferred by the use of 'today'?

Please answer in the Discussion sub-section below. Begin your comment with an asterisk: *

Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

(Please note that this is a discussion and not a straw poll with 'support' and 'oppose' !votes. The closer will assess the consensus.)

That's a very valid comment Alpha3031. A moderate to high traffic article with frequently changing content does indeed need to be regularly updated. That's why statements in the lede or the body text need to reflect the actual state of the claims made by the authors. I have written several Wikipedia articles, and I am fully aware of WP:OWN, but rightly or wrongly, I've always taken care to update them when necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The point of this RfC is exactly that not all the data is automatically updated every time the article is loaded. The UN source is only one of the many sources used. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It's an RfC Jonesey95, because if you read the preamble,, you'll see that of WP:BRD B and R have already been done - the change was disputed. This is the 'discussion' phase. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The Bold edit that was Reverted (by me, by the way) was the insertion of the phrase as of 2019, simply because it was erronous. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I read it a couple of times, and it looks like "today" was replaced with "as of 2019", which is inaccurate. It should have been replaced by ((date)), I'm pretty sure. Automatic date calculation is used at the top of the big table, so there should be no problem using similar code in the lead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It does say in the preamble that this is not a straw poll and that discussion should take precedence over 'support' and 'oppose' !votes , even if some users have been lulled in to believing that RfC are based on numerical results. Hence, as it has only been open for barely 48 hours, and as there are two questions to be discussed, it would probably be fair to allow the discussion to run until more of the notified users and those seeing the the notifications have had an opportunity to chime in and it becomes clear that no further comments will be forthcoming. Not all Wikipedia contributors remain glued to their computers 24/7 as is evidenced by the very participation of the 'regular' authors/maintainers of the article in question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
'as of today' was first introduced to the article on 22 August 2018, and by 27 April 1921 had become simply 'today' at 7.96 billion and is still 7.96 billion today 11 June 2022. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the figure attributed to the UN in this list is not their daily estimate but a number calculated by a Wikipedia template from their 2019 estimates of World population and daily increase. We would do better to use a figure such as the 7.9bn given in Demographics of the world or the UN figure ("as of 2022") of 7,954m. PamD 05:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

We should not say "as of today". It is occasionally appropriate to say "as of [current date]", using a template that automatically substitutes the current day, month and year, when the statement and reference are both also using templates that update daily. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "World Population Dashboard". United Nations Population Fund. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
PamD, I would think that is probably the most appropriate solution. The main thing is that readers are not lulled into assuming that all the population figures in the article are accurate and up-to-date. Without prejudice to the final consensus of this discussion and an official closure, I have been bold and edited this high traffic article to reflect this suggestion, and included the source. If anyone has a different opinion, it can naturally be modified or reverted, the original text is commented out with <!-- --> tags. However, I have not edited the first entry in the table as I am not sufficiently confident to do this without breaking anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The table in the article certainly seems very complicated. I think the result would be achieved if instead of ((worldpop)) we had a new template ((worldpop-UN)) which produced a figure, currently 7,954,000,000, for the current pop and was manually updated each time the UN dashboard produced a new figure (annually?). But I think discussion on that article's talkpage might be needed. The template ((worldpop)) seems to be used in seven articles including this one (but the use in OPEC is absurd as it is the "world" figure in a column headed "Population (2018 est)"!). PamD 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Your examples are fine SnowFire when used in the right context as you have explained very clearly, but perhaps the MoS needs to be updated to reflect and advise upon these differences. Hence the very reason this RfC was published on Cent rather than being solely a one-article issue discussed on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:ALLEGED issues

I think there are some issues with the MOS:ALLEGED guideline, most specifically that 'alleged' and 'accused' need discussing separately. These two words do not hold the same meaning. While the MOS:ALLEGED guideline holds water for the likes of "supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, so-called", this follow-up: "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." is too vague and blurs the distinction between 'alleged' and 'accused'. These two words have different nuances and relationships with proof. 'Accused' as a term notably casts no aspersions about the proof or the accuser. See the definition: "claim that (someone) has done something wrong.". 'Alleged', on the other hand, often implies that there is either no evidence, the evidence is false or the accuser is only making an accusation to cast aspersions of something negative over the accused. 'Alleged' is what a lawyer rebutting an accusation might jump up and shout in court. See that definition: "said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality." - note the emphasis on "without proof" and its relationship in meaning to "undesirable qualities". 'Alleged' is all about aspersion. It is my feeling that MOS:ACCUSED should have its own section separate to MOS:ALLEGED where the difference between 'accused' and the 'alleged'-type weasel words are clearly laid out. (All definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary.) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Alleged simply means that the the claim has been legally stated, but has not been proved one way or the other. Technically it is more neutral than accused, which implies that blame or guilt is assumed by the accuser. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wheelchair bound

I'd really like an outsider opinion/reassurance that changing euphemisms to be less offensive towards disabled people is a worthwhile thing and is consistent with the MOS:EUPH guidelines. I've received heavy pushback from one editor @Mathsci who considers these changes silly. I think that the guidance is crystal clear on this. The current contention is about the phrases confined to a wheelchair or being wheelchair-bound. I've tried to raise a conversation about this issue on the talk pages but those conversations seem to just be [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laughing_Under_the_Clouds#Choice_of_language rehashes ] of this one , which was already discussed on this page.

Smasongarrison (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Smasongarrison is making indiscriminate edits about plots and fictional characters in films. Often these concern comedy cartoon films or horror films (Madagascar or Frankenstein vs. Dracula). They have developed a robotic automated script, which is gradually developing. In this fictional context, it is inappropriate that these fictional plots or character descriptions should be mangled in this way. No thought seems to been applied, no reflection; they haven't bothered checking proof-reading or reading through the articles.
In the case of Charles-Valentin Alkan, they have tried to process the same stable wp:featured article twice, despite being warned by user:Smerus and me. On previous occasions, they have taken no notice (there were previous complaints in 2018). Smasongarrison's edits appear periodically on my watchlist (sometimes with articles subject to WP:DS). For example, in May 2022 they made edits to Ted Kaczynski, which were reverted. On Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan, they brushed off problems they were doing, declaring "I don't have the bandwidth to itemize their responses". It has been pointed out to Smasongarrison – who has no formal medical training – that the use of British English terms "suffering a stroke" is standard and cam be found in stroke advice for emergency treatment in the National Health Service. That seems not to have not registered with Smasongarrison, who has made four edits about Charles Dickens recently. The same with Samuel Johnson, a featured article. It's easy to see that the script is crappy: sometimes the Smasongarrison bot-script find "disabled" and does nothing; sometimes there will be replaced by an anachronistic euphemism. Who knows what the Smasongarrison script will do with the wp:featured article A Christmas Carol and the word "crippled".
The automated edits to the article Željko Đurđić shocked me: Smasongarrison's script produced unintelligible content and, given that it was of stub length, no proof reading had occurred. I had to make several corrections myself, taking into account the subject's personal circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm following MOS:MED guidance and this discussion. The script is a human being who looks at the edits and tries to be careful. Please keep the issue focused on the style guide, not on your concerns about me as a human being. I really don't appreciate being called a bot. I try to be responsive and engaging when editors raise concerns and have tried my best.
I'm not perfect, but I think that mathsci is focused on me instead of the actual issue. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathsci#%22Suffering%22 ] Smasongarrison (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to ping a few folks who were involved in the discussion @Liz @User:Johnbod. But honestly, I'm just going to take a break because I had forgotten how distressing I find dealing with Mathsci. Smasongarrison (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nobody would start doing this on Dracula vs. Frankenstein. This is a horror film, so clearly fictional. Being able to distinguish between fact and fiction is important. Please note WP:CANVASS (which is usually frowned on). Note also that the misguided edits to articles on fictional plots show a deliberate choice on the part of Smasongarrison; instead of following wp:consensus, Smasongarrison harms wp:featured articles. In the context of horror films or animated movies, these are not real medical conditions but just poorly devised scripts concocted by Smasongarrison's themselves. As far as I am aware, Smasongarrison has never created substaintial content on wikipedia. They have made offensive edits concerning editors who, like me, have suffered from stroke. Mathsci (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
What would happen with the plot summary of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It is fictional. Mathsci (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry that I offended you by editing the term suffer within the context of a stroke. My intent was never to offend. I was genuine in my offer to avoid editing the term. However, I don't think that there's anything I can say to convince you that I am a good faith editor who has made substantial contributions both here on wikipedia AND as part of the 'poorly devised bot' team. I make mistakes and try to be responsive, and I agree that I've made mistakes (I do my best to correct them). But, I really need you to try to assume that I am a good faith editor. And I would like to convey that the last time we interacted, I was trying to navigate my own grandmother having a stroke. I was trying to distract myself by doing non-controversial edits, and I did my best to avoid conflict by shifting away from the term, because that seemed easier than explaining the nuances of ableist language. Smasongarrison (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, it's really clear that this conversation has derailed. And, that there's nothing I can say to convince you that I'm a netgood to wikipedia. And that the reason the "script is crappy" is because I am being very intentional with my edits. That indeed 'sometimes the Smasongarrison bot-script find "disabled" and does nothing' because I'm using discretion and am I person. But obviously this isn't a productive conversation. Smasongarrison (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Overzealous script use aside, @Mathsci: characters and plots being fictional is not on its own a sufficient justification to relax editorial standards wrt. how we describe them. Fictional characters with disabilities are, of course, not harmed by the use of ableist language, but the living humans who read those descriptions can be. This is why, for example, we don't use racial slurs to describe characters in Huck Finn, in spite of the author himself doing so. Avoiding potentially stigmatizing/biased language does not inhibit Wikipedia in providing an accurate and useful synopsis.
I don't consider myself qualified to judge the acceptability of terms like wheelchair-bound, although "suffering from [stroke/heart attack]" (i.e. an immediate painful symptom, not a chronic disease or disability) doesn't seem especially objectionable. Kudpung's input is appreciated. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
These are ableist terms. Wheelchair-bound is negative as it emphasises that some is bound i.e. tied to and therefore limited to their wheelchair which is stigmatizing and overly negative. Outside of wikipedia, I have some experience with Diversity and Inclusion. More inclusive language is wheelchair user, who uses a wheelchair etc. There's an article from the BBC, UK government guidance and Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As a friendly note to all involved, a Request for Comment closed in December 2021 found no rough conesnsus to change the manual of style to deprecate those two phrases nor to issue any guidance in the Manual of Style against their use. For reasons of WP:CONLEVEL, this sort of thing should probably go through an RfC if there is desired change. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's super helpful! I hadn't seen that. (I'll make sure to use look through that in the future when I'm looking at AWB edits.) Smasongarrison (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Since "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are most commonly either wrong or not provably true, they can be changed on a case-by-case basis even though there is no consensus to deprecate them in MOS. The terms are only accurate if a person cannot move or stand without a wheelchair for any length of time; even then, they have offensive connotations. However, this particular dispute seems to be about something other than contesting the manual and careful change of this inappropriate language. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I had hoped that it was just a misunderstanding... and that could be cleared up without conflict (like last month). Unfortunately, he's decided that personal attacks are acceptable, as is following my edits. I've asked him to stop repeatedly, unfortunately, he seems to have done this kind of thing before and blocking doesn't seem to stop him from doing this kind of thing. Smasongarrison (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not the first time editors have pointed out problems with these bot-like edits: articles pop up periodically on users' watchlists (often the great & the good, but very long dead – like Dracula – or is he part of the undead ...). The circumstances when I suffered stroke have been mentioned before (while editing WP). In NHS documentation, the term "suffer a stroke" is used. The edit above does not seem related to MOS issues. But returning to animated movies, is Tom and Jerry politically correct? See Tom and Jerry#Controversies. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mathsci this conversation is about wheelchair users and the use of wheelchair terminology. I know that you disagree with MOS:MEDLANG about the use of the word suffer. You've already expressed your opinion. You have been asked by admin to leave me alone. I now understand why you have strong feelings about strokes. I have tried to be responsive by leaving the word stroke alone. I literally removed it from my source code and added practically every page you edit to my list of pages to avoid.
I have really tried. I am not perfect. I am truly sorry that I re-editing the pages that upset you. I was trying to check over my previous edits.
But you need to stop reverting my edits. There is a policy about this WP:SUFFER and a very recent conversation about this terminology on this very page. I have tried my best to be receptive to your concerns and have disengaged when I did not have the emotional energy to argue with you at the time.
Regardless, it seems to me that you have a history of doing this to editors who disagree with you. That makes me uncomfortable. Frankly, the fact that you hold this much anger toward me really concerns me. Please leave me alone. I really don't want to fight with you over this. If you want to change the policy over on MOS:MEDLANG feel free to try. Please stop hounding *me* over it. It is not my policy.
You've been warned by a lot of admin over this kind of behavior over the years, including very recent requests by @Liz and Hammersoft: for [2] I don't want this to escalate. I genuinely want you to leave me alone because your have a long history of following users who upset you. Please spend your energy elsewhere. I have apologized for offending you and I'm trying my best to avoid you. Ask yourself if you really want to be spending your time hounding a disabled woman for making edits that are less offensive in describing disabled people. You don't have to like me, but please, leave me be. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10: That seems like an overreach for that RfC closure. That there was no consensus to deprecate means there was no consensus to codify exclusion. That's all. It doesn't even mean there isn't consensus to prefer one set of terms to another. There's a huge range of words/terms that wouldn't get consensus to deprecate, even when existing guidelines make clear Wikipedia should generally avoid them. As long as something should only be avoided most of the time, it's unlikely to find consensus to deprecate. In other words, that there was no consensus to deprecate only means that -- it has no bearing on how existing guidelines are applied to articles. If Smasongarrison wanted to formally deprecate the terms then, yes, we'd need an RfC, but I'm not seeing that -- I'm seeing them replace the terms where it's appropriate to do so. This looks related. You're reading [the indeed awkwardly phrased] "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia" at WP:MEDMOS and reverting based on that, when the entire rest of that bulletpoint provides reasons not to use that phrase. That something isn't banned doesn't mean it's preferred -- so much preferred that it's worth reinstating when someone changes it to one of the "other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide" that aren't "stigmatising and offensive to some people". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, my qualifier of if there is desired change was meant to refer to changes to the MoS itself, rather than changes to a particular article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said last time this came up:
Smasongarrison's edits seem largely constructive to my eye, based on a spot check. It's worth differentiating between conditions/disorders like cerebral palsy and e.g. a snowboarding accident in which someone broke their ankle. Most of the arguments I've seen about avoiding ableist language are more about the former than the latter. Still, whether we cite this guideline or something like WP:TONE, "X broke her ankle in a snowboarding accident" sounds more encyclopedic to me than "X suffered a broken ankle in a snowboarding accident".
Coming back to the present, I'm most interested in why Mathsci thinks this sort of edit is an improvement such that it's worth making multiple times. Smasongarrison and others have articulated reasons why it's preferable to say "had Asperger syndrome" rather than "suffered from Asperger syndrome", but I'm not seeing good arguments to the contrary apart from some of the changes being fiction and the phrases not being explicit deprecated, which aren't very convincing IMO. The stroke example is one which I think is a somewhat grayer area, but many of these edits are pretty clearly improvements. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit about Alkan was not made by me, but by User:Smerus. I know about Alkan and Schumann because they both used the pedal piano for Bach's chorale preludes (e.g. for BWV 622); Smerus knows far more about Alkan than me and has photographed one of his instruments in Paris. He was the main creator of the featured article; it's written in British English and the use of the word "suffered" is normal. Given the timing, it's hard to see whether Smasongarrison read or digested the articles on either composers: they do not seem to have been selected with any particular rationale, just some kind of alphabetical order. The mental problems of Alkan and Schumann are well known to musicians (I've attended lecture-recitals about the Schumanns and Brahms in that context).
Rhodedentrites can check the 40,000 edits of Smasongarrison to see whether there are any edits that contain substantial contributions to namespace. I checked a while back, and could see none. Today I randomly chose this diff and noted that Smasongarrison "allowed" the word "suffered", so that the bot-like automated script is unreliable: During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic attacks was changed to During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic seizures.
At no stage has Smasongarrison explained why they are "disabled". Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The 1884 Yale obituary is a copy-paste for the article:
NOBLE BENNET PICKETT, the eldest son of Bennet and Sarah (Giddings) Pickett, was born, January 19, 1801, in Sherman, then the North Society in New Fairfield, Conn. In his early manhood he spent ten years in teaching, while at the same time pursuing his own studies, in medicine and other subjects. In the September after his graduation he was married to Laura Giddings, of Sherman. He then settled in professional practice in North East, Duchess County, N. Y., but a year later at the urgent request of friends removed to Great Barrington, Mass., where the rest of his life was spent. His medical skill and his earnest religious character made him much beloved. He was also specially interested m the educational work of the town. He served as a member of the State Legislature during two sessions, in 1851 and 1852. His public services were cut short by blindness, which overtook him about 1870. During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic attacks. He died suddenly at the house of his only child, a daughter, in Great Barrington, February 5, 1884, in his 84th year.
Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The edit about Alkan was not made by me - ??? You made the edit immediately following the one I linked and then restored the text again shortly thereafter (though Smerus did make one such edit, too). I would concede that, even though the reasons provided by you and Smerus weren't IMO very good, Smasongarrison shouldn't have made the same edit three times. They should've sought help elsewhere.
it's hard to see whether Smasongarrison read or digested the articles on either composers ... Rhodedentrites can check the 40,000 edits of Smasongarrison to see whether there are any edits that contain substantial contributions to namespace - I suspect when it comes to knowledge of this subject, nobody would challenge you and Smerus. Truly, I find the expertise of some of the editors who work on classical/opera articles impressive. Where I'd disagree is that knowing about the subject is necessary to change "suffered from Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder" to "had Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder". Some people spend their time reverting vandalism, some people adopt a typo to change across articles, some people fix dashes/hyphens, some people format references, some people remove promotional language, etc. Smasongarrison changes phrases like "suffered from Asperger syndrome" to "had Asperger syndrome", and given both this guideline and WP:TONE, that seems like a net positive that isn't going to vary all that much based on subject (i.e. an athlete, composer, and politician can all "have" Asperger syndrome without the need to say they "suffer from" it).
noted that Smasongarrison "allowed" the word "suffered", so that the bot-like automated script is unreliable - I do believe you've just provided evidence against the repeated assertion that they're making automated edits. BTW use of WP:AWB is allowed to find instances of specific phrasing. Users are responsible for each edit they make, and if they're making too many mistakes, they may lose access to AWB, but mere use of it to find those phrases is not a problem. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI I left a pointer to this discussion at WikiProject Disability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Without looking at specific edits that may be problematic, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with changing "suffered from" or "suffered" to "had". On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone considers a stroke anything other than a negative experience. This makes me wonder whether we would say "enjoyed great success" or would "achieved great success" be better or is that still a judgement? How often do we imply failure is bad and success good? Is it too stigmatizing to say someone was "cured", that they were "healed", or that they "recovered"? Does that imply diseases and injuries are bad? Aren't diseases bad? Looking at the introduction to disease it says "A disease is a particular abnormal condition that negatively affects..." Is Smasongarrison going to be ok with that or will it eventually to need to be sanitized and neutered? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The phrases confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair-bound should be avoided as they frame the disability and the assistive device in a negative light. They are also factually inaccurate in most cases: wheelchair users are neither physically bound to their chairs (except if falling out is a danger) nor need to remain in them, and many are in fact capable of walking, just not great distances or not consistently. Users tend to regard their wheelchairs as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement.
  • Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom, which may imply helplessness: identifiers like survivor, affected person or individual with are alternate wordings. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

People "afflicted" with disease

MOS:EUPH says "If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that." As well as conflicting with MOS:MED this just advocates crass writing; I cannot think of any example where following this advice would be good. I removed it but it was reinstated by Smasongarrison. Paging WT:MED for further input. Alexbrn (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not in favor of "afflicted" terminology at all; stigmatizing, unnecessary, and going the opposite direction of the intent of MOS:MED. If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that. --> If a person has a medical condition, say just that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Quite apart from anything else, it is not the nineteenth century.[3] Illness doesn't come from Satan. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I would at least include the basic aspect from MOS:MED which is to avoid saying "suffered from" or that the person was a victim.--Masem (t) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with SandyGeorgia. If a person has a medical condition, say just that. – as neutral as we can get. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
My guess is Alex and Sandy see this as recommending using the word "afflicted" (or "affliction") while Smasongarrison sees this as meaning the same thing as "if someone has a condition, just say they have it". I don't think you're saying very different things; it's just a matter of how to clearly present it (and whether it needs to be presented as opposed to simply linking to MOS:MED and the disability style essay). I dare say since there are clearly multiple people reading this as prescriptive for "afflicted", it's probably better not to leave as-is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes; it's just confusing that we are using on a MOS page the very terminology we intend to avoid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
And yes, I read "just say that" as referring to the wording used. Alexbrn (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
As in just say they have a condition, for example: they have a headache, they have a broken leg, they have cancer. It is clear, simple and steers clear of the ouskirts of verbosity. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm thrilled with changing "affliction" to "condition"! My concern was the complete removal of the advice of avoiding euphemisms related to medical conditions. (Like "wheelchair bound", "suffering from", "special needs" etc. )
Mason (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I would say overall the practice in primary journal articles is to use phrases like "person afflicted with disease" because "afflicted" in this usage just means "affected by a disease". It's often a negative connotation, and some usages indicate mandatory "suffering" or "difficulty", but it traditionally just means "affected by". But the phrasing "person afflicted by" is person-first, it's not as derogatory as "suffering from" and it is disease-context-specific. I have yet to come across a better alternative and would be happy to see if anyone has one. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
A person has a condition; an individual with a condition. It is as derogatory as "suffering from" to the extent it implies the historical usage of evil spirits. There is no need to use the word afflicted on this page.
Taking the Tourette syndrome example, the term afflicted is used in recent journal literature to describe those most severely afflicted (who are the extreme minority, sample), or to connect affliction to evil spirits (sample), or to describe dated/historical views on TS (sample, sample). Same can be said for dementia with Lewy bodies. The word is not used in any of the major secondary literature cited at the article. Scholars don't use the word; neither should we. We don't need it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
"Afflicted" in the bible (KJV) has a connotation of "burden" -
Leviticus 23:27 "Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord."
Exodus 1:11 "Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew."
Psalms 25:16 "Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate and afflicted."
I'm not sure that "evil spirits" are any more connected to this word than "burden" itself or "affected by". I would love to see some sources on that. Sure it meant "burdened by" or "in distress from" in the middle ages [4] but it certainly does not mean "evil spirits" in its most historical middle english uses. Where are you getting that from? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion by SandyGeorgia as that phrasing is apparently uncontroversial (thus far, at least) and explicitly preferred to the original phrasing by several participants here. I would suggest that the most productive way to carry on this discussion might be to focus on whether to include examples of phrasings to avoid (such as "victim" and "suffer from" mentioned by Masem). TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I like the new language. I think it might be useful to add one of the examples that @Pbsouthwood posted in this conversation. After reading this discussion, I'm a little concerned that someone will interpret this advice as meaning you should write "He had a medical condition" instead of, e.g., "He had cancer".
Tangentially, in any given situation, there are people who suffer and people who don't; there are people who perceive themselves as being afflicted by outside forces (demonic or otherwise) and people who don't. Even if I have difficulty imagining anyone experiencing certain things without suffering, I think it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to treat these personal/emotional/cultural responses to a situation as being the same for everyone. I would sometimes accept "She suffered through ____" or (preferably) "She channeled her suffering from ____ into her <reason for notability>" when we have a strong source that uses that language and expands upon how the suffering affected the person, but not "Everyone suffers during _____". (By contrast, "lost his battle with _____" is always an unencyclopedic cliche.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Well yes, I would agree that "lost his battle with" is a bad idea, given that it paints weakness in the part of the loser. But I really fundamentally do not understand the issue with saying that illnesses are inherently negative in how they affect the ill. Sure, for some circumstances, there are conditions which some may consider a disease that others will consider a divergent state of natural variation (eg Autism) and we need to respect that, and specifically not label everyone in such a situation as "afflicted" but, why group all conditions in one boat? Is anyone really saying that cancer and Autism are the same category?
If it isn't a negative condition, it probably isn't "afflicting." But to suggest that a condition like cancer is doing anything other than "afflicting" is just absurd. I would love to meet the people who enjoy having it. And when people don't care about it, or are "unaffected" by an illness, that is actually also considered a pathological state in medicine: la belle indifference — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Words to watch is a guideline, There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. If the carefully considered opinion of the editors of an article disagrees with a guideline, other ways of expressing the information may be acceptable in context.
Also, I have attempted to clarify per WhatamIdoing, but without using a specific example. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Whatever other objections there may be to using "afflicted with", it does not add any useful information. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink, the range of cancer is so broad, and the definition at the edges so porous, that talking about "all cancer patients" is pretty much always wrong. While I don't imagine that most people "enjoy" having cancer overall, there are people for whom it's basically nothing (e.g., they have bigger problems; they're too young or too disabled/demented to understand the diagnosis), and cancers for whom the diagnosis is clinically unimportant (e.g., early non-melanoma skin cancers, which are so common and have so little effect on lifespan that they don't even count these cases in the cancer statistics; ~80% of males technically have prostate cancer by age 80, but it's usually so slow growing that they'll die of something else long before anyone would notice). There are also people for whom the experience of cancer has some desirable aspects, such as personal growth or getting to be the center of attention.
In the end, this means that it'd be factually wrong to say that "All women diagnosed with breast cancer suffer" from, well, anything, because some of those "women diagnosed with breast cancer" also happen to be "women with advanced Alzheimer's", and that subset will experience neither disruptive physical symptoms nor from the knowledge that if Alzheimer's wasn't going to kill them next year, then breast cancer might kill them in five or ten years. While there are strong trends (most women are diagnosed with breast cancer at a younger and healthier age), it does not apply to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as I imagine you would predict, I agree with most of the above. It makes sense for prostate cancer etc, in which slow growing tumors cause very little actual physical suffering. But I would counter that emotional anxiety/fear of patients is still a factor so it's not like it's a walk in the park. All in all, I'm not that passionate about this and am not bothered that consensus disagrees with my position. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
>All in all, I'm not that passionate about this and am not bothered that consensus disagrees with my position.
That's wonderfully refreshing!
You do make reasonable points about how the experience isn't often a walk in the park. And in those cases it's fine (and I'd be in agreement with you) to include that information for specific individuals if there's clear citable evidence. (It's the challenge of generalizing broadly without evidence based on assumptions about others lived experiences).
Mason (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"Issue"

EEng has deleted do not use “issue” for “problem” or “dispute”. [5] This is a recent change in use, which started out as a euphemism for ‘problem’ but seems to be treated as a standard usage by young people. There is now a semantic problem with this, because it may be unclear whether ‘issue’ is used to mean ‘issue’ or ‘problem’. So I would prefer if this wording was reinstated. But I’m not sure that it should be in the Euphemisms section. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how that differs from standard usage. Merriam-Webster has "1a(1): a vital or unsettled matter; 1a(2): concern, problem; and 1b: a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties".--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
My dictionary (Oxford Concise) has it differently. The first meaning is about issues of shares, magazines, etc. Meaning 2 is about an outgoing, outflow etc. Meaning 3 ‘a point in question; an important subject of debate or litigation’ Meaning 4 ‘a result; an outcome; a decision’. Meaning 5 ‘ Law children, progeny’ Meaning 6 ‘ archaic a discharge of blood etc.’
There is no mention of ‘problem’.
So it may be that this is a difference between British and American English, as well as a difference between recent and traditional usage. ::Sweet6970 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
So a problem or dispute are two kinds of issue, among many. Calling a problem or dispute an issue is a a way of "avoiding the issue", to get a bit circular in the metaphor... "Problem" and "dispute" are much clearer ways of specifying what kind of an issue (meaning OC3 or MW1a(2)) is being considered. As an encyclopedia, we should strive for clarity. I think recommending not using "issue" when the meaning can be expressed more accurately by "problem" or "dispute" is good guidance. When the dictionaries indicate that issue means the same thing, not just a similar thing, as problem or dispute, we can follow .Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of that, but we certainly do not need an entry for it in MOS:WTW. There is no end to phrases and words that can potentially be used in a confusing way, often due to dialectal differences, but this guideline is about usages that are usually problematic and/or seriously problematic. As I said at a similar thread at WT:MOS, about differing US and UK expectations of terms like "tabled", someone should just write a style essay about this, which can grow arbitrarily detailed over time with examples of terms that can be used confusingly. MoS, however, is already over-long and adding more material to it is almost always controversial at this point. This just really is not the place to make nit-picking points about terms like "issue" or "tabled".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Adjustment of guideline re "controversial"

This page currently says:

"Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies"

I suggest that the words "describing an individual" be removed. The logic does not just apply to individuals but to anything that one might want to apply the word to. 82.132.214.74 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagree - as long as controversies are described in detail, I actually think this terminology is still applicable for events, places, etc. with no harm to the project. Would support adding "or organizations" to this however, as I think the same logic applies as with individuals. (namely, WP:BLP). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
lets take something that there would be no legal facets at all, like a concept or idea. Say, the legality of abortion or gay rights in general. We know there are multiple sides to this but we should not simply say its controversial because of that. we want sourcing for attributing that (which shouldnt be too hard), as simply having multiple sides doesnt make something controversial ( such as the various forms of quantum theory are more civilized debate and far from a controversy). Masem (t) 22:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Contentious Labels

Proposal: Insert a line in the Contentious labels section which reads "For labels like terrorist or freedom fighter which express an opinion on a person or group, establish who describes them as this (even if there is reliable sources describing them as such). One person's terrorist may be another's freedom fighter."

Reasoning: This makes it clear that even if a reliable source describes the subject as a terrorist or freedom fighter, it should be clear this is still a POV. For example in the IRA article it has "It was designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom and an unlawful organisation in the Republic of Ireland".

It makes sense for the situation around terrorist to be explained like "-gate" and "psuedo-" are, especially as MOS:TERRORIST links here.

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Too common: Euphemism "issue", meaning "problem"

The word "issue" has become a commonly used euphemism for "problem". It is not a synonym. The use of "issue" came about from Microsoft's desire to avoid the the negativity of "problem", but a problem is a problem; an issue is an item under question or discussion.

Due to its nearly ubiquitous (mis)use, I propose adding it to the examples. BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the word ‘issue’ should not be used to mean ‘problem. But there has previously been a discussion about this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_13#%22Issue%22 Sweet6970 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Charles, Prince of Wales

The example at MOS:PERSONOROFFICE regarding the above should probably be changed, considering recent events. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral wording for Pro-life and Pro-choice

Pro-choice and pro-life#Media usage discusses that other words are typically used in style guides for pro-life and pro-choice. There is an RfC on Ohio Senate hopeful J. D. Vance which also mentions Tim_Ryan_(Ohio_politician). I am rewrite of the ledes, but I am not American and I am not certain what are the neutral words in the debate

PRO life vs Pro Choice

Also is there Shorthand for the different stages, and reasons (and I am not sure how they are grouped)

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. The wording Wikipedia seems to have settled on is to call them the "anti-abortion" and "abortion rights" movements, at least according to Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ. So e.g. you can call a pro-life person "anti-abortion", and a pro-choice person an "abortion rights supporter" or "pro-abortion rights". Regarding shorthands, I don't think there are precise shorthands for different stages of pregnancy/reasons for abortion; in general I think it's better to be specific about different views or laws (e.g. "X supports bans on abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy"). Hope that helps. Endwise (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute over puffery and promotional text

I have had significant pushback to the removal of puffery and promotional content at Minneapolis. The opinion of others more familiar with puffery would be appreciated. Please see:

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I have tried to give some suggestions there, although I'm not an expert on the matter. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
For the record, as far as I know, these discussions have been resolved peaceably. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition to Contentious label section

This was never closed formally but it is obviously a dead proposal from a blocked user which did not garner any support. So it's effectively closed as it hasn't been touched in a couple months. Andre🚐 23:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose adding the following,

Avoid terms like deniers, skeptics, or doubters. Explicitly describe the subject's opinion.

  • He denies climate change.
  • He disagrees with mainstream scientific research that shows the climate is changing.

AP stylebook suggests using this approach. Madame Necker (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this vague reference to AP related to this? Is there evidence that a significant number of worthwhile references say climate change doubters? I doubt it. Oppose. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan You are referring to an outdated version of AP stylebook, which is probably what causes your confusion. 2022 edition recommends against using doubter too. Madame Necker (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I only have access to the 55th (2020-2022) edition, not the 56th (2022-2024) edition, but for reference on what the 55th edition says:
Do not use terms like climate change deniers, climate change skeptics or climate change doubters. Be specific about an individual or group of people’s beliefs. For instance: people who do not agree with mainstream science that says the climate is changing. Or people who do not believe that human activity is responsible for the bulk of climate change. Or people who disagree with the severity of climate change projected by scientists.
I entirely agree with the AP stylebook here. But I don't think that "denier" or "doubter" are really value-laden words. They're more just imprecise, as the three examples given by the AP demonstrate (are you referring to people who say "the earth isn't warming", "it is warming but humans aren't responsible", or "anthropogenic climate change is real but it won't be as bad as the scientists say"?). I'm not sure where the AP's advice here should be written down, or if it even needs to be written down, but I do think the section on value-laden labels would not be appropriate. Endwise (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
It is also avoid WP editors misclassifying these people and promote editors to explain more why someone disagrees with climate change/etc. Without engaging in excessive false balance. Masem (t) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that, and dislike the tendency to label people rather than describing/explaining their views/actions, but I think MOS:LABEL should be more about labels which impart values, like "racist" or "terrorist". Endwise (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This would definitely apply to values, such as current terms climate change deniers and skeptics...both terms can be used to imprecisely paint how a person views climate change, which, when misused, tends to also attack their character. They can definitely be value-laden. Masem (t) 10:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I was also referring to the 55th edition. Thanks for correction. Madame Necker (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
(A) The section already includes "denialist" in the text box with sample value-laden labels, and each new word proposed here (skeptic, denier, doubter) is basically a synonym that is already included within the meaning if not the black-and-white text.
(B) The proposal uses Holy Commandment language (Do not use...) but the long standing section doesn't say that. Instead it says are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So this proposal would overrule that flexible guideline in place of "Do not use". No thanks; if the significant RS use the label we should too, but with inline attribution. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

That is has been in the bix and not followed means its a problem. And per BLP we are required to take a more impartial, dispassionate tone, even if the press at large have opted for a different term. AP herre is driving the press away from this language so we absolutely catch up with them even if that means we abandon terms used in okder coverage. Masem (t) 04:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Upon reading this written out, I feel like I should apologize for being a tad passive-aggressive or implying things. @Madame Necker I was checking your contributions and became sceptical, since you only edited in a few very controversial areas and ended up here rather quickly. I am not implying you are a sock, it's just that I've had previous bad experience on this page (the aforementioned "similar discussions"), so I'm on high alert if I see anything unusual. I realise you were likely meaning well, so please see my reaction in this context. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you @LordPeterII, I too believe you were well intentioned. Last week, I had had a bicycle accident and now after reading your reply I can understand why some of my comments might have sounded rude to my sister. We are humans and stress sometimes causes us to do unfortunate things. I think you are a hardworking editor and I deeply sympathize with you. Madame Necker (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More