Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Addition to Note C suggestion

I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed. Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out. 5Q5|^✉

Should WP:BUZZWORD be moved here?

Reading WP:BUZZWORD, I noticed that it recommends avoiding the word "solution" and its wikilink leads here, but the anchor is broken. My investigation then revealed that this page (MOS:WTW) used to contain a section on the word "solution", but the whole section was removed back in 2010, with a simple edit message of "tightening": [1].

I think the topic of buzzWORDs to avoid/watch belongs here more than in the essay where it's currently found (WP:PLAINENGLISH). Do you agree? If so, do you have any advice for me regarding moving the content (e.g. should I incorporate the deleted text in any way)? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The easiest solution (uh) may be to just remove the broken link from "solution". Content gone for 14 years probably wasn't missed, otherwise it would have been restored much earlier. Gawaon (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:D Obviously, but that doesn't mean it's also the best one. One possible explanation for why it wasn't missed is that we do have WP:BUZZWORD and that's also why I'm suggesting moving that content here, rather than simply restoring the original one. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In my viewpoint, that advice is fine where it is. Nothing wrong with it, but it reads more like an essay than like a MOS page. Plus, of course, it expands on issues that are already quite well covered in the MOS, so merging it in would probably require considerable work. Gawaon (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How about a shortened version? It could even just be mentioned in one or two sentences under an existing section like MOS:PUFFERY and keep the original WP:BUZZWORD in the essay for a longer explanation. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:FLUFF" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:FLUFF has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10 § Wikipedia:FLUFF until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Can MOS:ACCUSED contradict MOS:CLAIM

My interpretation of the text used here is that "accused" should only really be used when one is suspected of a crime and not more generally. I recently had a disagreement with another editor that had a different interpretation (see Talk:Golden rice#2024 case in lead for background). I suggest that it might be useful to clarify how MOS:ACCUSED is distinguished from MOS:CLAIM directly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The text actually talks about "wrongdoing" rather than "crime", and I think that makes sense. For example, "She was accused of deliberately misleading the public" might be appropriate enough, even if she didn't break any law. Gawaon (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This is where the disagreement about interpretation came in. I thought that the example used in the latter half of are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial was important. It lead me to the conclusion that such phrasing should be using sparingly and in specific contexts, not simply x accused y of being misleading. Given the general vibe of MOS:CLAIM, I think neutral language is generally preferred if there is a way of phrasing things that way. Maybe my interpretation differs from the broader community, maybe it doesn't. Hence my desire for clarification on what others think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well I guess such words are only necessary when there is uncertainty on whether the accusations are true. If we positively know, thanks to RS being all in agreement, we could simply write confidently, in Wikipedia's voice: "She deliberately misled the public". Gawaon (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Statesman" and "nationalist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

noted, observed - are they really not neutral?

I was under the impression those terms are neutral synonyms for said. @Nihil novi _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree – noted, observed, wrote, stated, or sometimes said – I find these all neutral enough synonyms and tend to use them interchangeably, since you simply cannot write wrote all the time. Gawaon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternatives to wrote include said, stated, described, commented, and according to. —Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that these are neutral and we should revise this guidance. -- asilvering (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SAID reads:

To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.

—Bagumba (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba To me, speculate is actually somewhat pejorative and suggests the very opposite, whereas noted or observed are pretty neutral. I.e. I don't agree with what MOS is saying here, although I'd agree speculated is not neutral and should be avoided. Maybe we need an RfC on noted and observed? Which, to me, don't imply any endorsment or opinion (or "carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence") and are neutral synonyms of wrote. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Plus we are supposed to evaluate the sources before we use them, using (rare exceptions exempted) only RELIABLE ones – that it, exactly those which exhibit at least a fair amount of careful evaluation based on evidence, with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If a source seems so unreliable that we don't dare to say it "noted" something, I'd suggest we should not use it at all (in regard to academic sources and similar – exceptions obviously exist, e.g. regarding personal views attributed to somebody). Gawaon (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is true most of the time, but this is words to watch, not even words that are usually wrong. Personally, I appreciated this sentence when I first read it; it made me more aware of subtler connotations that can crop up in certain situations. I think it should be kept. Remsense诉 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Piotrus is suggesting that the sentence be removed, just that the words "noted" and "observed" ought to be removed from it. I agree that the other three words highlighted in it (insisted, speculated, surmised) should stay. We may also want to add "suggested" to the list. -- asilvering (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I'm speaking about: I really do think there are (comparatively few) contexts where their use is not necessary neutral though, and I do feel their inclusion in particular helped clue me into that. Sorry for my inspecificity above. Remsense诉 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you think they suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable? I don't really see how they do. It might make more sense to put them into another sentence that more helpfully clarifies the issue at hand. Can you recall any of those contexts where they weren't used neutrally? -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think they suggest access to information, if a bit obliquely. To me it's more like they potentially suggest a particular prescience or a particularly bespoke perspective? Of course, much of the time that's precisely why the material is being included, but not always. Going for the tired but hopefully helpful cliché, I would be distinctly apprehensive about beginning many possible sentences with Hitler observed that... I agree this may be better communicated if we split them out, though. Remsense诉 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hm, I see what you mean. I was thinking of the words as describing things said by sources (not things repeated in sources) - like "Historian observed that" etc. I'm not sure how best to communicate this concern. --- asilvering (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "particular objectivity or prescience" might be a good starting point? Remsense诉 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"These words can imply objectivity, and should be avoided when quoting less-objective sources."? -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure! Could we trim the second clause, and leave it unstated that one might not always want to imply objectivity? Remsense诉 22:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"To write that someone noted or observed something can imply objectivity where there is none."? Now it actually follows the same format as the rest of the suggestions in this section. -- asilvering (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems good to me! Remsense诉 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus, @Bagumba, @Gawaon, what do you think of the above wording? -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What would the wording be for insisted, speculated, or surmised? It'd be helpful to see the full changes being proposed. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

For those, no difference to what's already there. -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I like it too! Gawaon (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO none of the listed words are always neutral, and I frequently see uses that make me uncomfortable. Consider this:

• Alice said it's green. Bob said it's blue.

and compare it to these:

• Alice said it's green. Bob stated it's blue.
• Alice said it's green. Bob noted it's blue.
• Alice said it's green. Bob observed that it's blue.

This gives the same feeling as the difference between using and or but, which can cause POV problems. The first ("said") feels like a simple, equal "and" statement. They have different views, but that happens.. When you don't use said, it feels like a "but" statement that is declaring Bob's view to be correct or more important than Alice's. It stopped being two people sharing their separate views, and started being Bob saying that Alice is wrong.

BTW, our rule here is not unusual among style books.

Garner's Modern English Usage, in an entry on the word say as a verb, says "Whenever possible, use say rather than state". It says that stated is stilted and that it's not an exact synonym. Say is an everyday, ordinary word: "The restaurant was noisy, so he had to say it loudly." State is more formal and authoritative: "State your full name and exact address for the record."

Theodore Menline Bernstein has a delightful entry in The Careful Writer about writers' apparent fear of using the same word more than once, and calls out say as word whose synonyms should not be encouraged. In the entry on "Say and its Synonyms" (page 405), he begins by saying that "One mark of an unsure writer is that he seems to tire quickly of the word say, and to feel that he must turn to a synonym". He ends this entry with a list of several common synonyms and their not-quite-identical meanings, including "state is to express in detail or to recite.  It is well to discriminate among these shades of meaning or, failing that, to stick to say." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)