🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Introducing the Revise Tone Structured Task

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features § Introducing the Revise Tone Structured Task. Sdkb‑WMF talk 22:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents

[edit]

I'm thinking that we should add "car accident" to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Euphemisms. What do you think?

See Traffic collision#Criticism of "accident" terminology for more information. The word choice became common in the US due to a lengthy publicity campaign run by the US National Automobile Chamber of Commerce. A 2015 Vox piece has a readable summary, for anyone who's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat reluctant. For one, I am not sure the Vox source provides any evidence to support the idea that this terminology was only popularised as a result of that organisation's campaigning. For some reason, the editors at Vox decided to include an Ngrams chart to support their argument, when in fact, it does the opposite: 'car accident' seems to have always been more common than 'car crash' in books, even before the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce existed. The term 'car accident' is also commonly used in Britain, I might add. Second, there are car crashes, collisions, shunts, &c., that are genuine 'accidents'. Vox says the word "accident" presupposes that nothing could be done to prevent a crash, but this is a misunderstanding of the term of 'accident', which usually means that something 'unintended' happened, not that it was unpreventable, hence the relatively common terms 'preventable accident' and 'unpreventable accident'. Funnily enough, the first definition given for 'accident' in the Collins Dictionary is: An accident happens when a vehicle hits a person, an object, or another vehicle, causing injury or damage. Personally, I find this very questionable, however, and prefer the Cambridge Dictionary's something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone. Given the above, I do not think I can support this proposal. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Vox article doesn't say that the terminology was only popularized as a result of that one PR organization. In fact, they say exactly the opposite: "It’s impossible to attribute this solely to the wire services’ articles". They say that their efforts played "played a big role", but never that it was the only cause.
The Ngram will also have picked up sources such as this one that are talking about street car accidents. The Ngram also shows that the popularity of this term went up significantly in the mid-20th century.
The fact that a term is common in daily speech does not change the fact that it is not a neutral term.
Merriam-Webster gives a legal-focused definition: "an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought". Most traffic collisions aren't accidents under this definition because most of them are due to "fault or misconduct".
The Oxford Dictionary of English offers this definition: "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause". A wreck by a drunk driver (~30% of US traffic deaths), or someone driving at excessive speed (about the same), is not "without apparent cause". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember having said that Vox said that this terminology was only popularised by that organisation. I said that the Vox article provides no evidence to support your assertion that the word choice became common in the US due to a lengthy publicity campaign run by the US National Automobile Chamber of Commerce. You now provide additional definitions from dictionaries, but I'm sure if I were to open them, there would be other definitions, because 'accident' can mean different things in different contexts, as I mentioned above. It is true that some collisions may not be 'accidents' under one definition or another, but there are other collisions that may well be neutrally described as an 'accident'. The use of 'car accident' is not in and of itself euphemistic, if the collision itself was accidental. I can see no justification for an editorial straitjacket here. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but WTW doesn't provide an editorial straitjacket. It provides information and advice against misuse of euphemisms. This section says, for example, that "challenge" is not to be used as a euphemism for "problems", and yet phrases like "health challenges", "some challenges", and "many challenges" appear in a few thousand articles at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but I still do not agree that this is necessarily a euphemism, because the word 'accident' is fundamentally related to intent, rather than culpability or preventability, as I mentioned above. Labelling this particular use of 'accident' a euphemism seems to rip any nuance out of the word, which is inappropriate, at least not without much better sourcing than a Vox article. I am also struggling to understand why 'car accident' is by default a euphemism, as opposed to other kinds of accidents. The Vox article says 'We don't say plane accident'. Very interesting, considering that you noted 'street car accidents' appearing in the Ngram above. Are you sure the motorman wasn't inebriated, speeding, or perhaps he ignored a signal? I don't think there was any 'National Streetcar Chamber of Commerce' working to promote the terminology 'street car accident', was there now? What about the Three Mile Island accident? Clearly this was preventable, and yet, we call it an 'accident'. Why? Intent, intent, intent. The kind of over-simplification that this change would encourage is not helpful. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re plane accident: Indeed, the National Transportation Safety Board investigates aviation accidents (along with highway accidents, rail accidents, and marine accidents -- all without the presumption that no one's at fault). See [1]. EEng 04:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the OED, cited above, but wikt:accident also has this definition: "A collision or crash of a vehicle, aircraft, or other form of transportation that causes damage to the transportation involved". Such usage is quite widespread and normal, as far as I call tell, and I see no good reason to call it out as a euphemism. Gawaon (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have lost my access as well, at least for the moment. However, as a frequent user of the OED, I will note that it always labels euphemisms as such in the relevant entry. If WhatamIdoing has access, she will be able to verify this. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 08:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The OED (as opposed to the ODE) is usually available to editors in the UK, which I am not.
I'm not claiming that no problems involving vehicles are accidents. If you're driving down the street and a tree drops a branch on your car by chance, that's a true accident. What I'm claiming should be obvious: breaking safety rules (e.g., driving drunk, driving too fast for road conditions) isn't an accident. The driver may not have intended to wreck the car, but they did intend to take the risk of wrecking the car (e.g., they started driving despite knowing that they had been drinking alcohol; they drove too quickly despite knowing that it had been raining).
This is not a new idea. An appellate judge in the 1960s said this in court: "Is this the scene of this, not the scene of the accident—that is a euphemism—is this the scene where you found those two automobiles?"
AP Stylebook: "However, when negligence is claimed or proven, avoid the term accident, which can be read by some as a term exonerating the person responsible."
"The drunk driver caused an accident" is not a neutral word choice. It is attempting to exonerate the drunk driver for their choices. It is not a word we should ban, but it is IMO a word we should watch – as in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking the law may or may not be accidental, depending on the case, but if the driver did not intend to cause whatever incident resulted from breaking the law, that incident can still be legitimately referred to as 'accidental' under the definitions given above, i.e. the Oxford 'without deliberate cause' or the Cambridge 'not...intended'. The AP Stylebook is quite circumspect in its guidance, indicating that the term accident 'can be read by some as a term exonerating the person responsible', i.e. noting that this is not a problem with the word itself, but with some people's perception of its meaning. This is not the sort of game Wikipedia should play, as we have an obligation to be neutral. There is evidence that this war of perception on the term 'accident' in relation to what has heretofore been termed a 'motor traffic accident' is the result of campaigning by activists. You still have not addressed why the term is problematic in relation to the term 'car accident', but not, let's say for, the Three Mile Island accident, or 'street car accident' or 'Railway accident'. The contradictory treatment of this term in relation to 'car accidents' alone seems to be evidence of an activist motive that Wikipedia should not indulge. For the record, I have never held a driving licence, despise the ruddy machines, and do not drink. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. EEng 01:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Three Mile Island disaster would be a better title. If most railway collisions involve choosing to take risks (as opposed to, e.g., damage to the tracks from frost heave), then Train wreck would be a more neutral name.
In the case of Traffic collisions, we already know the answer: most "accidents" are not actually accidental. They are the result of people choosing to take safety risks.
I doubt that there is a meaningful difference between "the word itself" and the "perception of its meaning". What people perceive the meaning of a word to be is the meaning. Wikipedia should be in the "game" of writing clearly, and that means avoiding verifiable, foreseeable misunderstandings. The principle behind Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality says to choose words that work for as many people as possible. We know that car accident isn't interpreted the same way by everyone: for some, it's a polite way to avoid blaming the guilty; for others, it's a statement that nobody is guilty; for others, it just means that a car got damaged. I believe we should avoid using that term when we have a high degree of certainty that this was not an instance of random chance, but instead the ordinary operation of the law of physics on a driver who made dangerous choices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Collins, a 'disaster' is 'a very bad accident'. Choosing to operate a train when there is the risk of an accident due to damage from frost heaves is 'taking a risk'. The accident may have been caused by neglecting to inspect the track for damage, or failing to account for a weather advisory. Perhaps the track was designed in such a way that it was vulnerable to frost heaves. In fact, choosing to operate a train at all is taking the risk that an accident may potentially occur, and the same applies to operating a car. Most people don't get behind the wheel of a car thinking that they are going to cause an accident. They could, of course, have chosen to walk instead of drive...and thereby prevent any 'accident' from occurring, but we wouldn't assert that a driver was at fault for merely making the choice to drive a car at all, now would we? That's despite the statistical reality that private cars are the most dangerous mode of transport. Or perhaps we will ascribe blame to the driver of that paragon of American excess, the SUV, as he has chosen to drive a car that is many times more dangerous than a smaller vehicle. Where does it all end? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+2. EEng 04:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it all end? When the risks taken are risks that the legal system specifically prohibits drivers from taking: driving faster than the posted speed limit, driving faster than appropriate for the road conditions, driving drunk, driving high, tailgating, driving recklessly, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're just arbitrarily defining the limits of moral culpability as being, precisely, the doing of things which violate the law. That's silly. EEng 17:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that specifically for driving, that's a fair choice. Can you think of a common action taken by drivers, with a significantly higher risk of hurting other people than average, that isn't illegal? I can't: driving while drunk is illegal; driving while sleepy is illegal; driving too fast is illegal, driving while distracted by a phone is illegal... WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LABEL question

[edit]

How is one expected to "use in-text attribution" for a term "widely used by reliable sources"? If all/most/many RS use the term why would there be a need for attritbution and is one expected to attribute the label to one source out of many randomly? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use language like "X is consist LABEL by many groups including RS1, RS2, and RS3", or "Many groups consider X is a LABEL." and used a grouped ref to give instances from the most respected RSes. Masem (t) 18:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes sense. However,I still don't see how it's always appropriate to attribute. We souldn't say for example that "many groups consider the KKK to have been a racist organization", as much as we would just say "the KKK is a racist organization".
Would anyone object to changing the wording to indicate a suggestion of attributing labels rather than the current wording which suggests it is always necessary that contentious labels be attributed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change in this edit, stating "Using in-text attribution is often best practice with regards to mentioning contentious labels on Wikipedia."
(Note as another example the page 9/11, which uses the contentious label "terrorist" without attribution.) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why we use attribution in these cases is because the labels themselves don't hold any concrete meaning, i.e. their meaning is highly-dependent on PoV, as embodied in that well-known phrase: 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. Without attribution or context, these labels are confounding rather than helpful. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true for some labels, but not for all of them. Sometimes it divides along POV, in which case it's helpful: "They are reviled by A as a terrorist, but welcomed by B as freedom fighters".
    But other times there is no division. Every reliable source says that the KKK is a racist group, so Wikipedia should not try to say that they're racist according to Alice and Bob and Chris and David and Eve and Frank and even themselves. We should just say they're racist and be done with it.
    @IOHANNVSVERVS, I think the key point is in the WP:INTEXT guideline: "When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation." That could be copied here if necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but I note that our article uses the term 'white supremacist' instead. Unlike 'racist', which is vague, value-laden, and varies in meaning based on context, 'white supremacist' refers to a distinct ideology that can be easily identified. It is usually better to describe the reasons why sources refer to an organisation or person as 'racist', rather than expect the label to do the work. This is one important difference between an encyclopaedia and news sources. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"White supremacist" is also value-laden. See also what that article has to say about the term itself, e.g., "John McWhorter, a specialist in language and race relations, explains the gradual replacement of "racism" by "white supremacy" by the fact that "potent terms need refreshment, especially when heavily used", drawing a parallel with the replacement of "chauvinist" by "sexist"." In that sense, it's exactly the same label, with a shiny new package to catch people's attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'White supremacist' cannot be the same label as 'racist', though some people might use it as such. The definition of 'racism' varies by context. If a Japanese expresses hated for Koreans as a group, that act may well be described as 'racist' by a definition of racism that allows for discrimination on ethnic lines, but it is clearly not 'white supremacist'. The historical context is completely different. Other definitions of racism may only allow for discrimination on racial, rather than ethnic lines. A Ms Shriver, writing in The Times, argues that positive discrimination is 'racism', and clearly this kind of 'racism' cannot be said to be the same thing that the Korean-hating Japanese or the KKK practises. On the other hand, a 'white supremacist' believes that 'whites' are superior. This is clear, though I yield that the definition of 'white' may vary. What a 'racist' believes is entirely unclear, without context. Presuming that the average Wikipedia reader is steeped in the Americo-centric conception of race relations is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the big issue going on on the Gaza genocide page that Jimbo has stepped into. Just because there are no reliable sources that provide a counterpoint to a contentious label while most all other RSes use that label doesn't mean we should use that label as fact, per WP:NPOV. Mind you this is better thought of when talking topics that are in the present or recent events, where the big picture is still a moving target. Once we are years out from any such contention, and events have long since settled down, then as long as one can validate through a source survey that there is no serious question about using a label (particularly in considering more recent sources distanced from the event), then we can likely use the label as a fact. The KKK example is such a prime case, since we are decades out since the group was most active and contentious. Masem (t) 03:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "mainstream media"

[edit]

Whenever I hear that term, I immediately imagine some Fox News watching Q-Anon conspiracy nut who thinks vaccines cause autism. I'm currently in an editing dispute who wants to drop the term into a mostly apolitical article; my position is that it's unnecessary to include such a loaded term. Maybe it needs to be added to "contentious labels". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the US political context, "mainstream" should be avoided altogether because its use by the political right has become fallacious. Members of both the left and the right are prone to characterizing people on the other side, or positions of theirs, as being "out of touch with the mainstream". But on the right are also people who decry "fake news" from what they term the "mainstream media". In other words, media that are mainstream are the media that appeal to the viewers who are out of touch with the mainstream, while people professing mainstream views hold only contempt for the mainstream media? The word has become loaded and its meaning undiscernible. Largoplazo (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To many Americans, mainstream media has become synonymous with unreliable, left-leaning, TDS advocacy. Not sure this needs inclusion here, but it's definately a third-rail term. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it sounds like a WTW. Gawaon (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I blame Nixon and William Safire, they're the ones who started the whole thing of using "the media" as a pejorative, you won't even find it in the sense of "news media" in a pre-Nixon dictionary. "Mainstream media" is an extension of that, with an added implied sense of superiority ("we're not mainstream, we know what's really going on"). More left-wing oriented conspiracy people like 9-11 truthers use the term too. Of course "the press" is old-fashioned and not accurate anymore now that few people get their news from actual newspapers or magazines. So I'm not sure what word to see use when we say something has received coverage, maybe just "media coverage". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"traditional media" or "traditional news" is what I've seen for strictly newspapers, magazines, and non-24/7 news programs, as to differentiate from cable news or online news. Masem (t) 03:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be blinded by the myopia of recentism. The term 'mainstream media' originates in marketing, and was used to distinguish a magazine like Time from alternative media like Mother Jones. Of course, no one should ever use the term 'mainstream' in an attempt to discredit a given outlet, or to imply that some other 'alternative' provides a more fulfilling truth. The problem with these kinds of usages, however, does not originate from the contentiousness of the label itself, but rather from a failure to adhere to WP:NPOV, particularly the sections about due and undue weight, and false balance. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are "mainstream media" and "legacy media" the same thing? Are those 2 terms with the same meaning, or is there some subtle difference? Honest question, I'm not from the US Cambalachero (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. As I wrote above, there are many legacy media that are not 'mainstream'. The terms 'mainstream' and 'alternative' were originally American marketing terminologies, based on the target demographic of the relevant media. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ngram tells the story - thee term barely existed before 1980. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=mainstream+media&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Landslide"

[edit]

The term landslide is cited in MOS:IDIOM, but landslide victory seems to be a standard term in politics, even in academia.[1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's a common and useful term in electoral politics. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I remove it or add a footnote that landslide victory is a standard term? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be to remove it. The other examples are sufficient. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd include it because it's a standard cliché in politics, often applied with abandon to contests that have the nerve not to be near-dead heats, tacitly implying that dead heats are the norm and conveying an air of astonishment over something that is often not astonishing. It's sloppy writing. Or, at the very least, put it somewhere on the page (is there one?) that covers loaded terms, of which it is one. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's not quite MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:CONTENTIOUS, but a new category of words to watch. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its similar to "mainstream media", being a term of art but should be taken as contentious by nature, and thus if used, needs to be attributed. Masem (t) 04:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted the removal. As the article you have linked says, there are no clear criteria for what constitutes a 'landslide'. This is a contentious term that requires attribution, because its use is highly subjective. In encyclopaedic writing, we must use such hyperbolic terms with care, and very rarely, if ever, in the Wikivoice. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should be explained as such, perhaps alongside the similarly vague lion's share. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Johnston, Ron; Jones, Kelvyn; Manley, David (July 2019). "MultiLevel Modeling of Space–Time Variations: Exploring Landslide Voting Patterns at United States Presidential Elections, 1992–2016". Geographical Analysis. 51 (3): 280–313. doi:10.1111/gean.12176.

Question about weaselling

[edit]

Let me know it this is the wrong place to ask this question about a guideline. I made the following comment on Imran Khan's talk page: 

I believe the guidelines at MOS:WEASEL frown upon phrases like "Khan was widely believed ...". However, the policy says that "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source". Hence, saying "In 2024, Arab News wrote that Khan was widely believed ... " seems fine. The same applies to using "analysts" as a source. In other words,  "Analysts say Pakistan’s powerful military is likely behind the slew of cases against Khan" would be considered weaselly. However, "Al Jazeera wrote that analysts say Pakistan’s powerful military is likely behind the slew of cases against Khan" is fine.

Have I interpreted the guideline correctly or, if not, what is the correct approach in the two cases I mentioned? Burrobert (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict is between me and Burrobert. I have already stated on the same talk page that we should not include content where a source attributes a statement to anonymous analysts unless the source identifies who those analysts are. However, if a source states that something is a widely held belief, it may be included with attribution to that source. A widely held belief is, by definition, held by the public according to that source, and does not require specific attribution in the way that analysts, critics, or observers do, since those terms can be narrowed down to identifiable individuals. A widely held belief cannot be narrowed down in that manner, and we are discussing the Public image section, which is an appropriate place for such content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a normally RS attributes a claim to an unnamed source, then inclusion of that claim with the double attribution (the RS and their source) is reasonable. We are taking the RSes statement they have better the source's statement. Masem (t) 03:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch&oldid=1326107230"