View source for UniWiki:Manual of Style/Words to watch

{{hatnote|For the the manual of style section on the use-mention distinction, see [[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Words as words]]}}
{{UMoS guideline}}
Though all UniWiki articles are subject to EVE University's [[EVE University Rules#Code of Conduct|Code of Conduct]], there are few instances where breaking the Code of Conduct would be germane to article content. Thus, assuming all other guidelines are followed, there are few words or phrases on the UniWiki that are expressly forbidden. However, certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.

The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and '''should not be applied rigidly'''.<ref>If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be. As [[Wikipedia:Ernest Gowers|Ernest Gowers]] advised in ''The Complete Plain Words'', "Be short, be simple, be human."</ref> For example, some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts (e.g. "claim" in law). What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—[[Wikipedia:WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]] being the most important. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources.
== Words that may introduce bias ==
=== Puffery ===

{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|text-align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique ...'''</big>}}
{{see also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view}}

Words such as these are often used without attribution to [[Wikipedia:WP:Promotion|promote the subject of an article]], while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by wiki contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.
* '''Peacock example:'''
** [[Wikipedia:Bob Dylan|Bob Dylan]] is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.
* '''Just the facts:'''
** Dylan was included in [[Wikipedia:Time (magazine)|''Time'''s]] [[Wikipedia:Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century|100: The Most Important People of the Century]], in which he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.

Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem.

Puffery is an example of positively [[Wikipedia:Loaded language|loaded language]]; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much. People responsible for "public spending" (the neutral term) can be loaded both ways, as "the tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren" or "the public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good".

=== Contentious labels ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, bigot, myth, -gate, pseudo-, controversial, ...'''</big>
}}

[[Wikipedia:Loaded language|Value-laden]] labels—such as calling an organization a ''[[Wikipedia:Cult|cult]]'', an individual a ''[[Wikipedia:Racist|racist]]'', ''[[Wikipedia:Terrorist|terrorist]]'', or ''[[Wikipedia:Freedom fighter|freedom fighter]]'', or a sexual practice a ''[[Wikipedia:Perversion|perversion]]''—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Avoid ''[[Wikipedia:Myth|myth]]'' in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

The prefix ''[[Wikipedia:pseudo-|pseudo‑]]'' indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ''[[Wikipedia:List of scandals with "-gate" suffix|‑gate]]'' suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate). Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term ''controversial'', instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a [[Wikipedia:WP:FRINGE|fringe viewpoint]] undue weight.

=== Unsupported attributions ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said ...'''</big>
}}

[[Wikipedia:Weasel word|Weasel words]] are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the [[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Lead section|lead section]] of an article or in a [[Wikipedia:Topic sentence|topic sentence]] of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a [[Wikipedia:WP:RS|reliable source]] may use similar expressions, if they '''''accurately represent the opinions of the source'''''. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources.

=== Expressions of doubt ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...'''</big>
}}
Words such as ''supposed'', ''apparent'', ''alleged'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although ''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. ''So-called'' can mean ''commonly named, falsely named'', or ''contentiously named'', and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply ''called'' is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate that [[Wikipedia:scare quotes|the writer is distancing herself or himself]] from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of ''[[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis|emphasis]]'' may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.

=== Editorializing ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... notably, it should be noted, interestingly, essentially, actually, clearly, of course, without a doubt, happily, tragically, aptly, fortunately, untimely, unfortunately, ...'''</big>
}}
The use of adverbs such as ''notably'' and ''interestingly'', and phrases such as ''it should be noted'', to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone|impartial tone]]. Words such as ''fundamentally, essentially'', and ''basically'' can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with ''actually'', which implies that a fact is contrary to expectations; make sure that this is verifiable and not just assumed. ''Clearly, obviously, naturally'', and ''of course'' all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to excess verbiage. The UniWiki should not take a view as to whether an event was ''fortunate'' or not.

{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... but, despite, however, though, although ...'''</big>
}}

More subtly, editorializing can produce [[Wikipedia:WP:SYNTH|implications that are not supported by the sources]]. Words used to link two statements such as ''but'', ''despite'', ''however'', and ''although'' may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second.

=== Synonyms for ''said'' ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify ...'''</big>
}}
''Said'', ''stated'', ''described'', ''wrote'', ''commented'', and ''according to'' are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more [[Wikipedia:Loaded term|loaded terms]]. For example, to write that a person ''clarified'', ''explained'', ''exposed'', ''found'', ''pointed out'', or ''revealed'' something can imply that it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was ''said''. 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.

To write that someone ''asserted'' or ''claimed'' something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of ''admit'', ''confess'', and ''deny'', [[Wikipedia:WP:BLP|particularly for living people]], because these verbs can inappropriately imply [[Wikipedia:Culpability|culpability]].

== Expressions that lack precision ==

=== Euphemisms ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... passed away, gave his life, eternal rest, make love, an issue with, collateral damage, living with cancer, ...'''</big>
}}
The word ''died'' is neutral and accurate; avoid [[Wikipedia:Euphemism|euphemisms]] such as ''passed away''. Likewise, ''have sex'' is neutral; the euphemism ''make love'' is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use ''issue'' for ''problem'' or ''dispute''; ''[[Wikipedia:Civilian casualties|civilian casualties]]'' should not be masked as ''[[Wikipedia:Collateral damage|collateral damage]]''.

If a person ''has'' an affliction, or ''is'' afflicted, say just that; ''living with'' is a verbose softener. Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.<ref>The [[Wikipedia:National Federation of the Blind|National Federation of the Blind]], for instance, opposes terms such as ''sightless'', in favor of the straightforward ''blind''. Similarly, the same group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as ''people with blindness'' for the simpler phrase ''blind people''; see [http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm93/brlm9308.htm#2 Resolution 93-01], National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.</ref>

=== Clichés and idioms ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... lion's share, tip of the iceberg, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...'''</big>
}} 
[[Wikipedia:Cliché|Clichés]] and [[Wikipedia:Idiom|idioms]] are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. ''Lion's share'' is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as ''all, most'', or ''two-thirds''. The ''tip of the iceberg'' should be reserved for descriptions of [[Wikipedia:Iceberg|icebergs]]. If something is seen as wasteful excess, say that, not ''gilding the lily''. It's presumptuous to describe someone as ''taking the plunge''; just state their actions matter-of-factly. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, then the sentence should be reworded. [[Wikipedia:Wiktionary|Wiktionary]] has a lengthy [[wikt:Category:English idioms|list of English idioms]], some of which should be avoided.

=== Relative time references ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, soon, since&nbsp;...'''</big>
}}
{{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of#Precise language|Wikipedia:As of#Precise language]], and [[UniWiki:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Chronological items]]}}
Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using ''recently'', ''currently'', and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By May 2011 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" (when written in mid-2011) but the first example retains its meaning as time passes. And ''recently''{{ndash}}type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: was it in the last week? - month? - year?<ref>In long-view sciences such as palaeontology, "[[Wikipedia:Recent|recent]]" may have meanings such as "within the last 11,700 years"—the [[Wikipedia:Holocene|Holocene]]—and will not go out of date.</ref> The information that "The current president, Cristina Fernández, took office in 2007", or "Cristina Fernández has been president since 2007", is better rendered "Cristina Fernández became president in 2007". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-17}}", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in {{#expr:{{CURRENTYEAR}}-65}}".

When material in an article may become out of date, follow the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:As of]] guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.

Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources. Instead of "hamburgers are a traditional American food," say "the hamburger was invented in about 1900 and became widely popular in the United States in the 1930s."<ref>[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Original, authentic, and traditional|"Original", "traditional", "authentic", and other distracting terminology]]</ref> Though seasons differ between the northern and southern hemisphere, when describing game-related events in real-world terms, seasons in the northern hemisphere should be used as the default, as that is the location of CCP.

=== Unspecified places or events ===
{{Color box|color=purple|width=75%|align=center
|<big>''Words to watch:'' '''... this country, here, there, somewhere, sometimes, often, occasionally, somehow ...'''</big>
}}

As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones. It is better to use explicit descriptions, based on reliable sources, of when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying "In April 2012, Senator Smith somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%," say "In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which has been attributed to his new position on foreign policy."<sup>[1]</sup> Instead of saying "Senator Smith often discusses foreign policy in his speeches," say "Senator Smith discussed foreign policy during his election campaign, and subsequently during his victory speech at the State Convention Center."<sup>[2]</sup>

=== Person or office? ===
It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as [[Wikipedia:Barack Obama|Barack Obama]]); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2009 to 2017.
* {{!xt|President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court}} – No, whoever is president at the time does.
* {{xt|[[Wikipedia:President George W. Bush|President George W. Bush]] nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice}} – Yes, as this will always be true.
* {{xt|The President nominated [[Wikipedia:John Roberts|John Roberts]] as Chief Justice in 2005}} – Yes, as the year makes this clear.
* '''The guest list included [[Wikipedia:Charles, Prince of Wales|Charles, Prince of Wales]]''' – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with [[Wikipedia:Charles I of England|Charles I of England]], Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely.
* {{!xt|Former President [[Wikipedia:Richard Nixon|Nixon]] met with [[Wikipedia:Mao Zedong|Mao]] in 1972}} – This is technically incorrect, as Nixon was not the former president at the time; he was actually in office. Write {{xt|President Nixon met with Mao in 1972.}} The construction '''then-President Nixon''' is usually superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between different periods of Nixon's career.

=== Neologisms and new compounds ===
[[Wikipedia:Neologism|Neologisms]] are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as ''pre-'', ''post-'', ''non-'', ''anti-'', or ''-like'' to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend [[Wikipedia:WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding ''-ism'' to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.

== Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities ==
{{hatnote|See also: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Offensive material|Wikipedia:Offensive material]]}}
EVE University's [[EVE University Rules#Code of Conduct|Code of Conduct]] and the UniWiki's [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] encompass the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the [[Wikipedia:WP:V|original source]]. Language that is [[Wikipedia:Vulgarity|vulgar]], [[Wikipedia:Obscenity|obscene]], or [[Wikipedia:Profanity|profane]] should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.

== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia:Article titles]]
* [[UniWiki:Manual of Style#Subset terms|UniWiki Manual of Style:Avoiding redundant subset terms]]
* [[wikt:Category:English idioms|List of English idioms on Wiktionary]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|group="refs"}}

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
* [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style/Misuse ''The Elements of Style''—Words and Expressions Commonly Misused]