Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

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)

Same goes for anchovies. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 26 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)

Agreed. Thoughts on "educator"? I feel it's a similar case to "statesman". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's unambiguously positive like "statesman", but I do see it in a lot of excessively promotional biography articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 26 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)

I support this too. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record: 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 - yes, that's what I meant, asilvering is correct. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 16 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)

My view is that ‘noted’ and ‘observed’ are not neutral, because they imply the truth of the matter which has been noted/observed, whereas ‘said’ is a factual statement that someone said something, and does not imply that what was said is true. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been meaning to jump in to say exactly that. The narrow use cases are stuff like: "Noting that no prior president had been impeached twice, Sen. Blowhard called it 'a critical moment in our history' ". EEng 00:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

True enough, but assuming that the mentioned statement seems true to our knowledge, is that really a problem? Would the sentence be improved by writing "Saying that no prior president had been impeached twice"? (I'm not quite sure whether you want to endorse or criticize what you call "the narrow use cases".) Gawaon (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A use case is a situation in which something would be appropriate or beneficial to use. EEng 05:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

All right, we're in agreement then. Gawaon (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The English verb "to note", which derives from the Latin noun "nota" (“mark, sign, remark, note”), is cognate with the English adjective "notable", which derives from the Latin "notabilis" ("noteworthy, extraordinary").

Use of the verb "to note" thus suggests that its object is unusual or particularly remarkable.

Different English "synonyms", such as "to note", "to observe", and "to say", carry different connotations and are best reserved for their respective linguistic ecological niches.

Best,

Nihil novi (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the editors who have noted or observed that these two words are not neutral because "they imply the truth of the matter which has been noted/observed, whereas ‘said’ is a factual statement that someone said something, and does not imply that what was said is true". Btw, the Russian government recently noted that the United States financed unsuccessful Ukrainian attempts to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Burrobert (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Stated

This page says "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate". However, as I stated above, ;-) the word stated is not neutral. I therefore propose that we remove it from this particular sentence. (If you all prefer, we could add it to the sentence about noted and observed, or we could just leave it out entirely.)

Garner's Modern English Usage, which is a significant source for our own Wikipedia:Manual of Style pages, including this one, says "Whenever possible, use say rather than state". It says that stated is stilted and more formal and authoritative – which, translated into our jargon, means that it's not neutral.

Theodore Menline Bernstein has an entry in The Careful Writer that states that using the word "state is to express in detail or to recite" and directly says that this is not an exact synonym for say.

Wiktionary gives wikt:state#Verb the definition as "To declare to be a fact". Cambridge Dictionary emphasizes that when you state something, you are saying something "clearly and carefully". Collins says that when you state something, you "say or write it in a formal or definite way". Brittanica's dictionary agrees that it's a more formal way of expressing something. A formal, careful, definite, factual declaration is not exactly the same as just saying something. Say only declares the fact that someone said it. State claims that what was said is factually correct and carefully expressed.

The reason I have looked into these sources is because I've seen a couple of editors assert that say and state seem interchangeable to them, and I'd like to decide this on the basis of sources, rather than on the basis of personal feelings. I think the sources state that the verb state is not "almost always neutral". What do you think the sources say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there is a neutrality problem with the word ‘state’. My dictionary (Concise Oxford) gives as the primary meaning of the verb: express, esp fully or clearly, in speech or writing, which is my understanding of the usual meaning. It gives as an example: have stated my opinion which goes against the idea that stating is always about facts.

And your examples don’t seem to me to demonstrate that the word is not neutral. "state is to express in detail or to recite" does not imply the truth of what is stated and "To declare to be a fact" also does not imply that such a declaration is correct.

So I would leave ‘state’ as a neutral word.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, did you compare that against your dictionary definition for say?

I'm asking because if say is "to express" and state is "to express fully or clearly", then these are not always interchangeable. Editors should not just swap one in for the other out of a desire for variety. See also Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For ‘say’ my dictionary has as the primary meaning: utter (specified words) in a speaking voice; remark; put into words; express; state; promise or prophesy. So, whilst ‘say’ and ‘state’ may convey the same meaning, there are different nuances. But I don’t see that this means that ‘state’ is in any way non-neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem either. There may be small nuances in meaning (as there always are), but any edit merely changing "state" to "say" or "write" (or vice versa) would not be an improvement, as either wording is fine. Gawaon (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"State" seems neutral, and will often be more consistent with the level of sourcing we expect from "Reliable Sources". PamD 15:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We use a lot of sources that are merely he said/she said content: "Paul Politician said that he was conservative, but Chris Challenger stated that he was not." In a sentence like that, you might as well say that Paul might have claimed it, but he's wrong.

I wonder if we could have a discussion that isn't based entirely on editors' personal opinions and what "seems" to them. I just provided sources saying that it's not "almost always" neutral. Do you think that we could have a discussion about our guidelines based on what the reliable sources say, instead of entirely based on what "seems" to be the case according to editors' own opinions? Based on the three responses so far, I'm thinking that's not going to be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

But it's the problem here how "but" is used? Would it be better to write: "Paul Politician said that he was conservative, but Chris Challenger said that he was not." Or: "Paul Politician said that he was conservative, but according to Chris Challenger, he was not." ? Gawaon (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be better not to use said for one and the more "definite" (per Collins Dictionary) state for the other. They are not equivalent, and state is stronger. Even if you said "Paul said...and Chris stated...", you're setting up Chris to be the stronger, more factual, more definite, more thoughtful, etc. speaker. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know what "almost always neutral" means. One can say something non-neutral using any word imaginable. Either the use of the word itself is inherently non-neutral or it isn't.

I think "stated" is "said" with a degree of formality or deliberativeness that isn't conveyed by "said". Using the word doesn't convey any attitude by the speaker/writer about the person doing the stating or the thing being stated. Basically, "he stated" = "he made a statement to the effect that". Largoplazo (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that what's meant by "almost always neutral" is that you should be able to use any of these words without needing to worry about "implications" or "nuances".

• Alice said the music is a blend of K-pop and Latin.
• Alice described the music as a blend of K-pop and Latin.
• Alice wrote that the music is a blend of K-pop and Latin.
• According to Alice, the music is a blend of K-pop and Latin.

but "Alice stated..." signals that Alice has a special authority or expertise, and that she is, after deliberation, formally declaring that her assessment is true. It's not simply something she said; it's now something that she has stated.

I think stated belongs in the next sentence, which says "For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable in a discussion on words in the English language for English speakers to state their understanding of the words. Our readers are not likely to refer to what Wikipedia editors consider to be reliable sources on the meaning of words: they will take the meaning to be what they understand as the usual meaning. Our editors are sample readers in that respect. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At least in theory, when we have sources saying that stated is more formal/definite/authoritative/objective/truthful than said – and the NPOV policy saying that editors shouldn't use more formal/definite/authoritative/objective/truthful language for only one POV in an article – then we usually prefer to follow the sources, instead of following editors' own opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect Shenanigans

It turns out that "WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects to this section of this article when putting it in a link, but putting "WP:CONTENTIOUS" in the search bar goes to this essay instead. MOS:CONTENTIOUS, meanwhile, seems to always go to this page. Should ""WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here" in this article be replaced with ""MOS:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here"? I'd be bold and do it myself but I'm afraid to touch the MOS. Placeholderer (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue that you describe is because the redirect WP:CONTENTIOUS does not redirect to Wikipedia:Contentious, but instead goes to this MOS. There is already MOS:CONTENTIOUS. Pinging the redirect creator, LaundryPizza03. —Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Should ""WP:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here" in this article be replaced with ""MOS:CONTENTIOUS" redirects here"? Not unless the WP:CONTENTIOUS target is changed. Nobody should be suprised that an MOS-prefix shortcut ends up at an MOS page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Bestseller

Does anyone else besides me have an opinion about this word? Publishers routinely describe their new books as bestsellers, with no basis whatsoever. We then quote these blurbs as if it was fact. In this way, really marginal works get elevated to books of momentous importance. I was many years ago involved in a rather bitter dispute over Mein Kampf in Arabic. The article originally contended - based on one unsupported claim in a single AFP article - that the book was a major bestseller in the Arab world. Since then, I see the word cropping up again and again.

I think that there should be a rule that a book can be called a bestseller only if there is a citation to a recognized listing of bestsellers, like the New York Times bestseller list.

I should note here that I myself have written three books, and they are all bestsellers. I promise you. Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need a special rule for that but you can certainly remove any "bestseller" claim that's not backed by a reliable source (such as the NY Times list, say). Gawaon (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

But what about the publisher. When Doubleday writes in its blurb "bestseller" is that something we can allow as reliable? See, for example, this blurb [https://books.google.co.il/books?id=bNsaAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y] is the basis of claiming that the book "Kosher Sex" is a bestseller at Shmuley Boteach Ravpapa (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Rely on an independent source(s), not the publisher, who has a vested interest in promoting their book. —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

When I see claims like this (i.e., in the US/English market), even when it's printed on the book itself, it usually specifies the basis for the best seller claim (e.g., "A USA Today bestseller"). There are different markets (e.g., best seller in the US vs best seller in Brazil) and different ways to count (e.g., are e-books and paperbacks counted as separate 'books'? NYT says yes, and USA Today says no[1]), but you should usually be able to figure out something about the basis for that claim, and therefore find a source better than a dust jacket blurb. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)