[edit] Words that assume a Mrs Grundy morality (I was initially going to title this comment "Words that assume a bourgeois morality", but it occurred to me that this expression might be (a) archaic, (b) misconstrued as disparaging morality in general, or (c) misinterpreted as Marxist.) There are a number of common expressions used to describe media themes or content in terms of their appropriateness for an assumed home or workplace audience: "family-friendly", "work-safe", "not safe for work" / "NSFW", "kid-safe", etc. I suggest that these be treated as words to avoid in articles, as they assume a particular point of view with regards to what is appropriate in these contexts: particularly, that the reader is assumed to believe and agree that sexuality (and sometimes a few other topics) is "unsafe" or harmful to a workplace or a family. These expressions are specific to a particular set of views that is itself not appropriate to all readers. "NSFW" refers to Anglo-American notions of appropriate conduct by white-collar workers in the offices of a business: it has little pertinence to those who work outside of that particular social context. It is specific to culture, class, and political worldview; it erases and invalidates those readers who don't live in that world. And even what is "work-safe" in a New York advertising agency may not even be legal in Singapore. Similarly, expressions such as "family-friendly" presume a particular set of views dealing with concealing certain matters from children -- usually sexuality, but sometimes violence, unusual political views, or non-mainstream religions. It is impossible to use this expression without assuming that you and your audience already agree as to what is excluded by it. It is not a description of particular themes, but rather a buzzword that can be used when the speaker and audience already share the same point of view. As such, these expressions are not suitable for use in a general encyclopedia -- one which is accessible equally to children of the middle class and to children of the underclass or the counterculture; to sex workers and to office workers; to conservatives, hippies, liberals, libertarians, traditionalists, radical feminists; and to people of all cultural backgrounds. Indeed, these expressions may be not merely inappropriate, but incomprehensible to people who do not already share the social and political views they stand for. ---FOo (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) - Well said, and absolutely right. —Noisalt (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Totally agree, but I'll add there is a Mrs.Grundy mentality when it comes to political discussion too. Some people on this site will refer to the mere presence of words such as oppression, islamophobia, deprivation, torture (in the wrong context) or phallic (any of those in a source - a book or website devoted to discussion within some kind of community) as proof that said source for how X is perceived by a significant part of the folks discussing him/her is "extremist" and can be dismissed as unreliable and fringe. So it's not WP itself of course, but the use of any of those words on a website listed in a source note for significant opinions about a person or a movement. Of course that's very useful if you want excuses for not bringing anything to do with criticism or controversy into a BLP, except in weak strawman language that makes it look like only idiots could argue with the person in question.
-
- The fact is, in many a bunch of people you don't have to go berserk or lose your sense of balance to use those words. There's nothing surprising about them unless you've been reared on a traditional-values kind of rethoric. /Strausszek (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorist attacks Is it OK to call a specific terrorist attack a "terrorist attack" and the people who carried it out "terrorists"? A lot of the articles in Category:FA-Class Terrorism articles do this, e.g. American Airlines Flight 11, so obviously in practice Wikipedia has decided that this is acceptable, but it seems like this would be forbidden by the guideline as it's currently written.Prezbo (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - Guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus across Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this particular section doesn't do that very well, and has been a frequent subject of dispute. I suggest you look at the general context of "Words that label" and discuss on relevant article talk pages whether a particular use of "terrorist attack" is a contentious label, or an accurate description. Geometry guy 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
-
- The guideline explains why terrorist is not a useful label, and how the article can be improved by either attributed in the description in the article text, or by using other more descriptive labels such as hijacker. -- PBS (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't understand "by either attributed in the description in the article text", consider the following. If an organization orchestrating a particular attack states that it aims to generate fear within a civilian population, then it may be reasonable to use the adjective (discuss it on the article talk page). Geometry guy 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Um, isn't that just what the USAF had as a stated aim in operation "Shock and Awe" in the first week of the 2003 Iraq War? A central part of the idea was to strike fear and despair into the ordinary people of Iraq and to show them they could not hope for anything by keeping up any military effort. I think Noam Chomsky has pointed out many times that the American neo-con watchword "fight the rogue states", if taken logically, would be turned against the US armed forces themselves and the political aims of domination which they are sometimes used for. Especially in the Third World. /Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the intent just to avoid "contentious" uses of these words? Right now the guideline really says that these words should never be used: "These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article."Prezbo (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC) - It is very easy for all right thinking English speaking people to label foreigners, who do not speak English and who bomb English speaking people, terrorists, but often it tells us more about the systemic bias of Wikipedia than it does about the bombers. See for example the section "Pejorative use" in the "terrorism" article.
- One way to consider this is in the troubles where there are two articulate sides to a dispute, both well versed in how to manipulate the sentiments of English speaking audiences, and who know how to maximize the use of propaganda, and where the usual systemic bias of Wikipedia is less pronounced. For example in the troubles of 1916-1920 where the Black and Tans the terrorists or the IRA? -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There are cases where the term terrorism clearly applies. The problem here seems to be a lack of understanding of the term by too many editors. In order to speak on the subject intelligently editors should be versed in the major accepted definitions of the word (by Counter Terrorism experts, as well as legal definitions). Too often people reduce the term to "deliberate targeting of civilians" or attacks meant to "inspire fear". Most complete definitions are not this jingoistic, and make it clear that something like Shock and Awe, in no way qualifies, but something like the Mumbai attacks does. It looks to me, like lots of editors have a political axe to grind. The last person who should be given a voice on this issue is a person like Noam CHomsky (who is writing way outside his field to begin with, and more a commentator than academic at this point). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - I agree that editors here tend to focus on the contentious cases to dismiss the idea that the word can be used in any uncontentious way (which is in itself, a fallacy). I've tried to make this point on several occasions. If you want to succeed where I have failed, you probably need to supply more detail and explain how some examples clearly fit the definition and others do not, or are more controversial. Geometry guy 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like fun, but given that other words like Dictator are also being called into question here, I think the bias at work is obvious and no amount of specific examples will change things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Frankly, WTA is problematic, as people seem to be using it as a dumping ground for every word that can be used problematically, as they come up. I've given up checking it on my own Good Article reviews, relying instead on common understandings of good English style, as embodied in Strunk and White (among others). I think that is closer to the original purpose of this guideline than the current wording, honestly. RayTalk 19:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC) - I agree - people seem to enjoy adding words to this page, and also WP:PEACOCK. But WP:TERRORIST has been around a long while and has general acceptance. This page is a useful pointer to avoid having the same discussion again and again regarding calling things terrorist. It correctly points out that saying "X designated Y a terrorist organization" is a lot more helpful than saying "Y is a terrorist organization". Law enforcement in the United States gets a lot of mileage - funding and attention - out of calling things terrorist incidents. Here's an interesting example of a crime that most people wouldn't consider terrorist but apparently is, in a legal sense.[1] I don't think the incident is notable but if it were we could say that the person was charged with the crime of making terroristic threats, but not that they committed a terrorist act. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That some people uses the word "terrorism" wrongly is not a reason to get rid of it. There are many academic experts who use it properly even if you have never heard about them. It is ashaming the degree of ignorance about terrorism that is deployed by people in this page and in wikipedia in general. E.g. a hijaker without political motivations is not a terrorist so to use "hijacker" instead of "terrorist" is not more precise at all. Please refer to Hoffman and the academic authors about the subject before giving baseless opinions. --Igor21 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Some other words Editing political articles I faced a number of other words which used to conway bias. I suggest to include them in the guideline. --Dojarca (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Using quotes Some editors use quote marks to empathise a viewpoint: After that there were conducted 'elections'... So-called 'experts' from the USSR 'found' that... - Agreed, quote marks like this absolutely sow doubt. Barnabypage (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Besides, by making an elaborate attributive phrase about where and how X said Y so-and-so (Y being a controversial statement), it's easy to indicate that the quoted words should be seen as pompous, prejudiced or dumb. There is a kind of unspoken "Look, can you believe it!" about that way of attributing a quote: When he was interviewed in the New York Times after his return from North Africa, Joe Biden said 'xyz' - ref NY Times -". Someone who wanted to keep a neutral or vaguely positive tone would much more likely write: Biden commented as he returned from his North African tour that 'xyz' -ref NY Times -" That first way of quoting also makes it easy to cherry pick the damning quote you want and highlight it; it springs out off the flow of the text. It really is crappy, very often it gives a pretend innocent signal that the quoted guy is a jerk.
-
- And, saying in the running text which paper it was and the precise date, unless there is a specific reason for doing this in the main text and not just by providing the reference link, adds to the impression that this is a quote that's meant to appear silly or misguided. /Strausszek (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it’s a valid point. The Wiki manual of style (Wikipedia:Quotations) addresses it indirectly in its advice to use quotation marks when using a “unique phrase or term from someone’s speech or writing.” The example given is Oscar Wilde’s famous, “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.” The implication of this advice is that commonplace words do not belong in quotation marks. The main reason is no doubt that that such use of quotation marks misleads the reader, who is expecting something unique or noteworthy when he sees the quotation marks. However, it is also true that such usage can become a backdoor way of, as /Strausszek says, of emphacizing a particular viewpoint. Quotation marks definitely add drama to the words enclosed in them. The same thing is true of stating a media source for a quotation within the text rather than in a footnote. I agree that a caution in the guidelines against inappropriate quotation usage, and also against dramatizing facts by stating a media source for a quotation in the running text,would be appropriate. One other point: Wikipedia:Quotations also advises that “all quotations must be attributed to their source.” If this rule were adhered to, it would make difficult the practice of dramatizing single words by putting quotation marks around them.--99.240.234.199 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)(Sorry, I forgot to log in when I made this comment, so I am signing again now:) --Early morning person (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] Regime Using word "regime" instead of "government" or "political order". For example: The regime demaned... The regime feared... ...opponent of the regime... ...supporter of the regime... This word conways definite negative connotation. - It can indeed have negative implications but I don't think a complete ban is in order - at times it might be a handy word just for variety; it also has non-political usages. Barnabypage (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- When used in political context the word clearly implyes that the "regime" is a political dictatorship or tyranny. For example The US regime accused Iraq in producing chemical weapons. Dalai Lama is a known opponent of the Chinese regime. President of Iran is a fighter against Zionist regime --Dojarca (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but equally President Green introduced a new wetlands conservation regime - that's why I say it shouldn't be banned as such, just used with caution. Barnabypage (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is completely different meaning, not synonimous to 'government' or 'political order'.--Dojarca (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The word is tainted at the moment because of its usage by the Bush administration in the phras regime change. But that does not mean that regime can not be used legitimately. I think that the confusion lies in a US bias there can be an "administration" change in the US but so long as it is done under the constitution it is not a change of regime. But when one system of government and simultaneously one group replaces another then there has been a change of regime. For example, the French revolution lead to a change in regime, from the monarchy (the Ancien Regime) to the First French Republic but one would not usually say that the replacement by Charles de Gaulle of the Fourth French Republic with the Fifth French Republic was a change of regime. But note that in the article Fifth French Republic there is the sentence "It is France's third longest enduring regime, after the Ancien Regime and the third Republic". Which to me seems perfectly OK and an accurate use of the term. So I don't think one can say "When used in political context the word clearly implies that the 'regime' is a political dictatorship or tyranny." --PBS (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - Well when referring to a modern state as "regime" it clearly implyes that the state is undemocratic. Also personification "regime wanted", "regime feared" etc. Regarding your examples, "regime" can be easily substituted with "political order".--Dojarca (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Fifth French Republic is a modern state and the term "political order" does not fit the sentence "It is France's third longest enduring regime, after the Ancient Regime and the third Republic" as well as regime. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why "politilcal order" does not fit? I cannot understand.--Dojarca (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- brevity and clarity -- simple. Otherwise we could write up to a paragraph for every word that does not appear in the vocabulary of the Sun newspaper. --PBS (talk)
- Seems that Ancien Régime is borrowed from French and constitutes a proper name in English so it's an exception.--Dojarca (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think "It is France's third longest enduring regime, ..." is better in this context than "It is France's third longest enduring political order, ..." and I don't think it implies that the Fifth French Republic either democratic or undemocratic. --PBS (talk)
[edit] Dictator In most cases the word may be substituted with more neutral "leader". - As in Führer! leader is not more neutral that dictator, and it is usually not very a accurate simile (if it is, it carries Orwellian connotations as in "Dear Leader" Kim Il-sung. The United States president is sometimes referred to as "the leader of the free world", but one could not substitute dictator into that quote and have it mean the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Leader" is used rather widely by high-standard news media, at least in Europe, for the presidents and PMs of any country. "A meeting of European leaders...", "negotiations between South Américan leaders and North American bankers" - I see and hear phrases like that every day! (I've heard Tony Blair and Gordon Brown called "the British leader" dozens of times, though rarely in English...) I know they don't have any intent of putting down these presidents and ministers but it irks me: the head of a country - if he or she has been chosen in a democratic way - is its elected representative, not primarily the "leader". The L word conveys a feeling that those people do not stand under the same laws as the rest of us.
-
- It might be better to use autocrat(ic leader),that brings the point home. /Strausszek (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well autocratic leader is also OK for me but I would prefere something more precise such as "head of government" or "party leader". While I agree the "dictator" may be appropriate, I think this word should be used only in one section describing the nature of political power/position of a person and on each usage well attributed. In other places it looks ugly. Some examples: Soviet dictator ordred offensive near Luga. Here Stalin acts as chief commander or head of government. Another case is attributing 'dictator' to an acting head of state uch as Putin or Lukashenko (rather than "president"). --Dojarca (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Dictator a precise and means something to people, autocratic leader is much less precise and unfamiliar. Why create confusion by creating a new term? Autocratic leader and Dictator are just as negative, because most people don't want to live under the yoke of someone with absolute power. In wikipedias affort to be neutral, it is actually serving the purposes of such rulers. We do not need newspeak on wikipedia. We need accurate information. - I agree that "dictator" is more descriptive than pejorative. It shouldn't be misused, but that's true of any term. I see no compelling reason to avoid this term when it is used by high-quality reliable sources to describe a situation that is clearly within the bounds of the common definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Democracy Country X is a parliamentary democracy as opposed to Country X is a parliamentary republic That the country is a republic is a fact while implication it is democratic may conduct bias. - Democracy has a fairly clear meaning; if used accurately, I don't think it's problematic. Barnabypage (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- If a country is democratic may be disputed. When the characteristic used for some countries and not used for others, it becomes discriminatory. For example, it may be disputed if Russia, Belarus, China, Venezuela are democratic, on the other hand republican order in those countries is a fact.--Dojarca (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem here with making a decision regarding usage on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the term's applicability may be debatable in some cases doesn't mean we should never use it in any. Barnabypage (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- The decision on case-by-case basis may be inherently biased, just as using 'terrorist' vs. 'freedm fighter' which is already one of examples in this page.--Dojarca (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- And what is Australia? -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Constitutional representative monarchy? Or parliamentary monarchy.--Dojarca (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Or more usually a "parliamentary democracy". Google search:
- "about 120,000 for "parliamentary democracy" Australia", "35,400 for "parliamentary monarchy" Australia"
- And it seems that "parliamentary monarchy" may be largely an invention of Wikipedia:
- "about 109,000 for "parliamentary democracy" Australia -wikipedia" against "about 5,840 for "parliamentary monarchy" Australia -wikipedia"
- -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- This does not imply is is either neutral or accurate to use "parliamentary democracy". And also reflects only English language media usage. Just as using "Communist state" regarding the USSR etc. Besides this it is known English-language media has strong bias regarding political terminology (for example terrorist vs freedom fighter controvercy).--Dojarca (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If high-quality reliable sources are using this term, then so should we. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many such sorces for exampe call the USSR "Russia". Should we too?--Dojarca (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Not nowadays as there is obvious scope for confusion. But in 1970, say, in the context of international affairs "Russia" was a reasonable and comprehensible shorthand for "USSR", so I don't think it should be seen as an error on the part of sources from the Soviet period. Barnabypage (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Allies In some cases the word used to conduct sympathy to the side described as "alles". While in a war both opposing pareties if consisted of more than one country were alled with each other usually the term "allies" used to denote the side where participated Britain and/or the United States. For example when applied to some historical conflicts between British Empire and Russian Empire, British side usually denoted as "allies". In other cases a country while being formally allied excluded from the ranks of "allies" to conduct negative sentiment: During the Second World War the Allies recognized the Baltic independence while the Soviets did not The Allies criticized the USSR's decision to postpone the offensive What do you think about the above? --Dojarca (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - In the WWII context I think Western Allies may be a better usage anyway. However, it's important we don't get mixed up between the capitalised Allies of WWII and the more general, lower-case usage - to say that "Germany and Italy were allies in the early 1940s", for example, is fine. Barnabypage (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes capitalized "Allies" also used in the context far from the WWII. For example for conflicts between British and Russian empires as mentioned above.--Dojarca (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should ban as few words as possible. It is bad use of words that should be avoided. None of the words above is intrinsically bad enough for it to be generally avoided. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - Nobody says about general avoiding. Just as nobody calls to avoid the word "terrorist". But it exists in this page as certain usage may conduct POV.--Dojarca (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- The article title is 'Words to avoid'. Maybe 'Words to use with caution' or 'Words that are easily misunderstood' would be better. We all agree, I think, there are no words which must be absolutely banned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. But there are words that are recommended to substitute with others in certain contexts.--Dojarca (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is any good reason to reject this term, so long as its use is consistent with high-quality English-language(!) sources. If English-language sources widely name this or that group "allies", then using that word is just fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- In this usage it traditionally means allies of English-speaking nations. Sonce Engliush now used worlwide (especially in the EU and former British colonies), this may conway beas towards British crown.--Dojarca (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Um...I think that may be hunting for implied bias where none exists. If people think "the Allies" in such-and-such a conflict were the good guys, it's not because they're called allies. Barnabypage (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- None of these words belong in a general list of words to be avoided. If they are used inappropriately in a particular context, the problem should be dealt with there. Locke9k (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Metaphors I think we should avoid metaphors when it is practical to use a more formal, less poetic alternative. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC) - I agree (except of course in quotation, or when attributed), but do you see this as a widespread problem? We already have a segment on avoiding euphemisms for death. Geometry guy 14:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a widespread problem, however I did some quick searches, "meteoric rise" is currently used in over 200 content pages, and "landslide victory" is used in over 800, and over 3000 content pages contain some form of the term "decimate", which doesn't have a single clear meaning in the English language. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The overall suggestion is good. However, all language is metaphor. Whether you can identify a particular source or not, nearly every noun and verb in the language is a reference to something else that has become generalized. Words like "shift", "closed", "entered", and "built" are so commonplace that one does not pause to notice that they are being used in a sense far afield (spatial metaphor there to stand for conceptual distance) from the physical things they describe. "Landslide" is a specific term relating to election outcomes, and in many cases cannot be more succinctly or adequately described, so it is perfectly legitimate. "Meteoric rise", however, has no such specific connotation and can be described more precisely using direct language. This particular guideline, though, is getting too full of things to avoid, and errs on the side of over-inclusion. I'm wondering if the avoidance of overly colorful language when simple facts will do might best be stated as a separate section or even a separate essay or style guideline, if it is not already. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The guideline is intended to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. I agree that "landslide" is now a standard election term, hence encyclopedic. "Decimate" and "meteoric rise" could be more problematic, but searches do not reveal the context, and whether the terms were attributed or quoted. Geometry guy 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Or factual Crassus decimated his ineffective legions. -- PBS (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've split the massacre discussion into a separate subtopic. What about something narrower, such as needlessly poetic or flowery language? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Massacre - Interesting point. I wonder if "mass killing" appropriate to a famine even if it was a result or examplified by (ignorant/ineffctive) government policies (but called so in the source)? Is not this is a metaphor and should or not such famine belong to a "mass killing" article? Or, say, a massive AIDS infection due to medics' negligence called a "massacre" following the source? Or even calling "murder" a bad medical treatment?--Dojarca (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- See list of events called massacres --PBS (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you but my question was not about traditional calling but about classification. Should for example a state leader known for cruelty or repressions be included into a category of "Mass murderers" provided a source which calls him "mass murderer" exists?--Dojarca (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- The talk page archives of list of events called massacres and the two AfDs have yards of coverage on why the term massacre should not be used as a name for an event unless it is well sourced. But that is different from saying that so and so massacred such and such (the use as a verb instead of a noun) and I think that comes down to editorial judgement and how neutral sources describe the event. Generally though I suspect that the use as a verb should be avoided as it often has POV connotations. However I do not think it needs to be included on this page as we already have lots of examples and the general NPOV covers it.-- PBS (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Once again I think it comes down to how terms are actually used and understood by the large majority of people, rather than how they could, technically, be interpreted. It seems to me - though I'll grant that this is purely a subjective opinion - that mass murderer to most people implies someone who personally killed many other people through their own direct acts. To call a genocidal tyrant a mass murderer may be perfectly acceptable and easily understood metaphor, but I don't think it's what people will be looking for when they seek a list of mass murderers. Barnabypage (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think about inclusion of famines into the article Mass killings under Communist regimes? Can it be interpreted as a metaphor?--Dojarca (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is the place to discuss specific article content - the article's Talk page is better for that. But since you ask, in general I think a deliberately-induced famine could be classed as a mass killing, yes. But clear intent is crucial. Barnabypage (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- A massacre has to be fairly limited in location and span of time. It's like the difference between a battle and an entire war operation or campaign: no one would call the entire liberation of France in 1944 a single battle, and you wouldn't call the Rwandan genocide the "Rwanda massacre". IMO a single massacre can't really last longer than maybe two weeks - mostly shorter of course - and it should be just one place. The Katyn Massacre is a bit of a borderline case, because it now refers to killings in several prisons and outdoor locations - chiefly the Katyn Forest of course - over a few weeks, but those killings were all closely coordinated and the original use was just for the Katyn Forest execution shootings of April 1940. With a famine - no, that can't properly be called a massacre and I also think the contention that the Ukraine famines were deliberately provoked by the Kremlin (Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes) is a bit shaky. Strausszek (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Strausszek - just to clarify, I was referring to mass killing as potentially an okay term to describe some famines - not massacre. (This section is a bit confusing because we seem to be discussing both terms at once.) I agree with your analysis that a massacre should be limited in time and space. Barnabypage (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "War hero" I notice that the lead paragraph of an article about an army officer and later veteran's advocate and politician describes him as, among other things, a "decorated war hero".
(He was awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star and suffered wounds in the field leading to amputation.) It seems to me that we should avoid the use of the term "hero" in cases like this. Would appreciate your thoughts. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC) - Absolutely - it is an editorialising word. "Decorated war veteran" works just fine, or something more specific like "decorated former U.S. Army colonel" would often be even better. Barnabypage (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Realize There's a discussion about the use of "concluded" versus "realized" at Talk:Charles Darwin that may be of interest to some who comment on this page. Outside views would be useful! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC) [edit] However I'm unconvinced that however implies preference. - "Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others think he is a freedom fighter."
This seems to me to state that some people believe A and others believe B. Using however here doesn't, to me, seem to give any more weight to position B than position A. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - That is correct. However, the (somewhat misnamed) guideline "Words to avoid" aims to draw attention to situations in which the choice of words may (perhaps inadvertently) favour a particular viewpoint. It is meant to be a source of advice, not a list of proscribed words. Geometry guy 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the goal is to raise awareness that the use of words can introduce bias, not that specific words must be avoided. "However" is misused when it suggests a juxtaposed view where none of equal weight (or substantial if minor weight, at least) exists. —mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you. However, that isn't what the guideline says at the moment. The guideline says "however" implies preference. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only way this guideline will improve is if editors like yourself watchlist it, contribute to it, and steer it in the right direction. It is on my watchlist and I will do whatever I can to help. Geometry guy 23:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Terrorist" Use of the word "terrorist" is usually frowned upon in articles, yet it seems to have a life of its own in category titles. Is there a reason for this? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC) -
- Probably because is a word that is necesary to describe reality and in the articles can be avoided by semantic contorsions while in categories there is no way to substitute with long euphemisms. The avoidance in the use of the word "terrorism" is one of the shames of the en-wikipedia that reflects the corrosive power of the PC. Once more I want to state that terrorism is a disctinct phenomena and that to call it in bizarre ways is confortable for editors -because they avoid discussions with fanatics- but is unconfortable for the truth and unfair with the victims.--Igor21 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are there particular category titles, or applications of those titles which you're concerned about within the subcategories of {Category:Terrorism}? Шизомби (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] First person and second person pronouns I think we should add first person and second person pronouns to the list of words to avoid. Would it be appropriate to mention them in the "words that editorialize" section, or would it be more appropriate to cover them elsewhere? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) |
