Wikipedia:Words to avoid: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:18, 22 April 2010

Latest revision as of 15:35, 3 March 2020

(28 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Mergeto|#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:WordsManual toof watch|discuss=Wikipedia talk:Style/Words to watch}}]]

{{Subcat guideline|style guideline|<category sort key>|WP:WTA|WP:AVOID}}

{{selfref|[[WP:AVOID]] redirects here. You may also be looking for [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] or [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]].}}

{{style}}

{{Redirect category shell|

There is no word that should ''never'' be used in a Wikipedia article, but some words may mark contentious or unclear presentation. Such words can, if misused, convey different meanings than intended. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, be unintentionally pejorative, or simply be the products of bad style (''e.g.'', [[cliché]]s). A number of words that should be avoided or used with care are listed here.

{{R from merge}}

{{R to project namespace}}

==Sorts of terms to avoid==

{{R from shortcut}}

{{R to subpage}}

Words and expressions should be '''avoided''' if they are:

# ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific.

# derogatory or offensive.

# ones that imply that Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources, supports or doubts a viewpoint.

# condescending toward the reader.

# clichéd.

# unnecessarily flattering or positive. ''See'' [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]].

Jargon (that is, words and phrases which are not widely understood outside a specific group, or are understood differently by different people) should be either avoided or explained where possible; ''see'' [[Wikipedia:Explain jargon]]. Similarly, words that have different meanings in different variants of English should be avoided where possible, and briefly explained where their use is essential.

Choose specific nouns and verbs instead of piling on adjectives and adverbs (in a world of hype, understatement can have more impact than overstatement).

On the other hand, words that appear at first to be words to avoid ''may'' be acceptable if they are being used accurately and sparingly.

== Words that may advance a point of view ==

===Synonyms for ''say''===

{{Shortcut|WP:SAY}}

<small>Please also read the [[#top|introduction]] of this guideline on '''words to avoid''' if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

A point of view may be implied by using [[loaded language|loaded]] synonyms for the verb, "to say." Such words are sometimes inserted intentionally to influence the sympathies of the reader, but in many cases their use is the result of well-intentioned editors trying to avoid using the word ''said'', which they perceive as dull or overused. In contrast, readers will probably not even notice it, the word "said" being nearly invisible. However, attempts to correct the overuse "problem" with colorful synonyms for ''said'' probably will be noticed, and may affect the [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] of the article.

"Said" and "stated" are standard journalistic words. When a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the words ''say'' or ''state'':

* "Critics of contingent fees ''say'' that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers, without providing any benefit to the vast majority of clients."

When a statement is mostly factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using ''argue'' or ''dispute'' instead:

* "Opponents ''argue'' that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police."

Only use "cite" when someone cites or quotes another. Words like "report" imply authority, and should be used with care. Many other synonyms for "said" have similar problems, discussed below. To avoid using "said" too often, look for creative ways to rephrase the sentence instead:

* "According to Mayor Bimbsly, it is simply a matter of faith."

* "The official reason appeared in a later press release: 'There will not be a trial, due to a poor response from Asia.'"

====''Claim''====

{{shortcut|WP:CLAIM}}

While the word "claim" may be used appropriately, it can also be misused to cast doubt on an assertion. Editors should avoid this improper usage, and instead choose a neutral alternative.

* Dubious: "Politician Jones has come under fire for his use of racial slurs. Jones issued a statement in which he ''claims'' that he is not a racist." [A fact followed by a "claim" leaves readers inclined to believe the fact and disbelieve the claim.]

* Instead: "Jones said in a statement, 'I am not and have never been a racist.'"

"Claim" can be appropriate for characterizing both sides of a subjective debate or disagreement. Do not use "claim" for one side and a different verb for the other, as that could imply that one has more merit.

Acceptable use:

* "Scholar Smith ''claims'' that absolute truth cannot exist. Philosopher Peters ''claims'' that it must exist in order for the universe to function."

* "The only two eyewitnesses disagree about a key element of the crime. Witness Wendy ''claims'' that a tall, thin man with dark hair drove the getaway car. Witness Walter ''claims'' that the driver was short, pudgy, and blond."

Other definitions of "claim," particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable.

Acceptable use:

* "According to X Corp.'s ''claim'', Y Corp. inflicted $2 million of damages on it by infringing its patents." [Because we are discussing a [[Claim (legal)|legal claim]], this terminology is not only acceptable, but also the most precise.]

====''Point out'', ''note'', ''observe'', ''reveal'', ''expose'', ''report'', ''surmise'' ====

These words often favor one side in a dispute by giving their arguments extra weight or making them seem more factual or authoritative:

* "Critics of contingent fees ''point out'' that many lawsuits generate fees for lawyers without providing any benefit to the vast majority of clients."

At other times, they are used to introduce statements that may indeed be factual, but which opponents may not consider important or relevant:

* "Opponents ''note'' that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police."

Verbs such as ''reveal'' and ''expose'' can imply that what is reported is not only true, but also was previously being hidden.

Similarly, the verb ''report'' can bestow a sense of impartiality or objectivity on an unreliable source, such as a political action committee, a government press agency, or a spoof news source, that may be inappropriate:

*"The Korean Central News Agency ''reported'' that North Korea had launched its first satellite into orbit." [Use ''announced'', ''stated'', or ''said''.]

*"''The Enquirer'' article ''reported'' that the President met with space aliens to discuss the surrender of Earth." [Use ''said'', ''stated'', or ''indicated'']

====''Insist'', ''maintain'', ''protest'', ''contend'', ''feel''====

These words often make the party appear defensive:

* "Salafis ''insist'' that Salafism is not a purely Arabian movement."

The word ''feel'' can be appropriate for subjective experiences, but it is inappropriate for objective observations and can make the subject seem irrational:

* "Critics ''feel'' it is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational."

====''Admit'', ''confess'', ''deny''====

The use of these words should be given careful consideration, especially in the context of [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], because they can convey an implicit impression of guilt, or suggest that the truth is being hidden or ignored. Their negative use ("he denied", "she did not admit", "he has not confessed") should be avoided except where the factuality of the assertion is verifiable and uncontroversial, or where a legal conviction has been made. Positive constructions using these words, such as "She ''admitted'' poor judgment", are usually unproblematic.

Dubious use:

*"[[O. J. Simpson]] has not ''admitted'' any guilt in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman." [He was acquitted.]

*"Supervisors ''denied'' having any prior knowledge of the incidents." [Use "... said they had no prior knowledge ..."]

*"Councilman Smith ''denied'' the accusations of involvement in bootlegging operations."

Acceptable use:

*"[[Scott Peterson]] has not ''confessed'' any guilt in the murder of his pregnant wife." [He was convicted.]

*"Smith ''said'' of the accusations: 'This deplorable attack on my character is entirely without merit.'" [The quotation should be cited.]

The last example illustrates the benefit of providing a direct quote.

Other acceptable uses include situations involving unproved or disproved ideas and [[WP:fringe theories|fringe theories]], in which the words are used not to presume guilt, but to note that an assertion is known to be incorrect or without consensus. For example:

*"[[Moon landing conspiracy theories|Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers]] ''deny'' evidence that manned space missions successfully visited the lunar surface."

*"Pope Urban III ''refused to admit'' the mobility of Earth as described by the [[heliocentrism|heliocentric]] models of Copernicus and [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]]."

===Words that may introduce bias===

====''So-called'', ''supposed'', ''purported'', ''alleged''====

{{shortcut|WP:ALLEGED}}

<small>Please also read the [[#top|introduction]] of this guideline on '''words to avoid''' if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

These adjectives (and related adverbs) can imply that a given statement or term is inaccurate, without being upfront about it. This has a similar effect to [[scare quotes]], and such usage should be avoided. If doubt exists, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who is doing the doubting and why.

''So-called'' means both "commonly called" and "falsely or incorrectly so named" ([http://m-w.com/dictionary/so-called Webster's]), and it can be difficult to tell the two uses apart. Its use should be restricted to the first meaning, for instance when introducing terminology that may be unfamiliar (though here, italics may be preferable). It should not be used to characterize a specific application of a familiar word.

''Supposed'' and ''purported'', like ''claim'', cast doubt upon an assertion; writing "X is supposedly true" suggests that the author does not believe it. On the other hand, ''supposed'' can sometimes denote intent, permission, or prohibition. In such cases, the term will often be neutral, but may be too informal.

''Alleged'' (along with ''allegedly'') can also be misused to cast doubt on a statement, and should not be used as a routine qualifier; consider alternatives such as ''apparent'' or ''reputed''. On the other hand, the use of "alleged" as a verb may be appropriate in a legal context, though care is needed particularly concerning [[WP:BLP|allegations against living persons]]. Always make it clear in the article text (not just the footnotes) who made the allegation. In legal cases, this will usually be one of the parties, such as a prosecutor, government body, or [[plaintiff]]. In other contexts, consider alternative forms of words such as "X asserted that Y" or "according to X, Y."

Dubious use:

* "The ''so-called'' pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal." [''So-called'' suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". In accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Naming conflict|guidelines on naming conflicts]], the term "pro-life" needs no qualification.]

* "Those who live near Chernobyl ''supposedly'' suffer from elevated disease rates." [Remove ''supposedly'' and prepend the sentence with something like "According to independent investigations,...".]

* "Feather wool is a type of knitting yarn that is ''supposed'' to resemble wool." [Informal, and may suggest that it doesn't actually resemble wool. Replace with ''intended'' or ''designed''.]

* "The director ''allegedly'' said that he would break up the company if he were unable to find a buyer." [Attribute the allegation instead: "According to X, the director said that ..."]

Acceptable use:

* "Protons are not elementary, but are composed of smaller particles, the ''so-called'' quarks." [This introduces a new term, and so is acceptable use. Consider italicizing ''quarks'' instead.]

* "O.J. Simpson was charged with murder by the State of California after he was ''alleged'' to have murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994." [In the context of a legal action, ''alleged'' is understood to mean "alleged by a privileged source such as a prosecutor". Note how the sentence attributes the allegations.]

====''However'', ''although'', ''whereas'', ''despite''====

These words can sometimes imply that one alternative is less favored than another. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change.

Dubious use implying preference:

* "Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. ''However'', others think he is a freedom fighter."

* "Homeopathy says that dilute solutions can be therapeutic, ''although'' scientists say they have no effect."

* "Some people are convinced that the Church of Scientology is a cult, ''despite'' others saying that it is not."

In general, "A asserts Y. ''However'', according to B, Z." favors the latter assertion over the former. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."

<!-- Couldn't all of these sentences do just fine with a semicolon instead? -->

<!-- I'm not convinced "however" carries any such implication. However, I might be wrong. -->

====''Only'', ''just''====

These words, when used in conjunction with a measurable trait such as time or distance, suggest that the trait being described is unusual or remarkable. Even in cases where the value judgment being made represents a widely held view, it is still inappropriate to lead a reader to agree with that view. In most cases, removing the word ''only'' or ''just'' will address the problem. If the circumstance is actually exceptional (if an athlete beats a record time, for example), proper attribution should be provided.

Dubious use:

* "At ''just'' three years out of law school, Griffin's family requested that Scarborough represent him at his trial."

* "''Just'' five weeks after opening, a short section of the road near Sutton Coldfield was reduced to one lane to allow for repairs."

* "''Only'' 500 copies of the album were sold."

===Words that may imply unsupported links===

Adjectives such as "linked", "associated", "affiliated", and "related" can imply a connection between organizations without stating the nature of the connection or discussing the evidence for and against it; this may make the connection seem stronger than is supported by the evidence. The same applies to corresponding nouns, such as "affiliation" and "relationship".

If the connection is not well known, it should either be explained within the immediate context or via a [[Help:Link]] and this should be done in a way that makes clear whether the organizations themselves affirm the association or if a third party is making the association. [[Association (statistics)|Statistical associations]] should not be implied unless they have been demonstrated.

For example, here are two unsupported links:

* "The [[Al-Qaeda]]-''linked'' [[Jemaah Islamiyah]]"

* "The [[Enron]]-''affiliated'' [[company]]"

Here are more precise claims that state the nature of the connection:

* "[[Jemaah Islamiyah]], which ''shares upper-level members with'' [[Al-Qaeda]]"

* "The company, in which [[Enron]] ''owns a 51% stake''"

=== Words that label ===

{{shortcut|WP:LABEL}}

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

* "The [[Peoples Temple]] is a ''cult''."

* "The [[Ku Klux Klan]] is a ''racist'' organization."

* "[[Pedophilia]] is a sexual ''perversion''."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

* "The [[Peoples Temple]] is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,^[1] Y,^[2] and Z.^[3]"

* "The [[Ku Klux Klan]] is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."

* "[[Pedophilia]] is a [[paraphilia]]."

====Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?====

{{shortcut|WP:TERRORIST|WP:EXTREMIST}}

<small>Please also read the [[#top|introduction]] of this guideline on '''words to avoid''' if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

The terms "[[Extremism|extremist]]", "[[Terrorism|terrorist]]", and "[[Resistance movement#Freedom fighter|freedom fighter]]" are particularly contentious labels because they often carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|non-neutral]], so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

When replacing one of these labels with a less controversial one, the word to be used should be chosen on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the words' ambiguity, appropriateness, and specificity with respect to the context. Factual descriptions such as ''[[bomb|bomber]]'', ''[[gunman]]'', ''[[Aircraft hijacking|hijacker]]'', ''[[Hostage|hostage-taker]]'', ''[[Kidnapping|kidnapper]]'', and ''[[Suicide attack|suicide bomber]]'' are often suitable as replacements. ''[[Assassination|Assassin]]'' may in some circumstances be appropriate, but that word can also reflect a non-neutral point of view (hence such euphemisms as ''targeted killing''). Other words to consider using, but which may also reflect a non-neutral point of view, are ''[[Insurgency|insurgent]]'', ''[[paramilitary]]'', ''[[Partisan (military)|partisan]]'', and ''[[militant]]''.

When an article refers to the general concept of terrorism, extremism, or freedom fighting, those terms may generally be used (''e.g.'', in the article [[Resistance movement#Freedom fighter|Freedom fighter]], the article on a scholar who studies extremism, or articles concerned with general anti-terrorism organizations such as [[Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch]]). Nonetheless, care must be taken in these articles when applying the label of terrorist, extremist, or freedom fighter to a specific person, group, or event.

==Words that editorialize==

{{shortcut|WP:EDITORIAL}}

===Do not note what is being noted===

:{{seealso|Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Don't peacock your facts}}

<small>Please also read the [[#top|introduction]] of this guideline on '''words to avoid''' if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

Phrases such as "it should be noted" and "it is important to note/know/bear in mind" are usually unencyclopedic, because they highlight one particular fact as being especially important without attributing it. Instead of "It should be noted that ''/fact/''", simply state "''/fact/''".

Dubious use:

* "''It should be noted'' that the Vatican claims that the doctrine of indulgences has no natural connection with pecuniary profit, which they claim is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this association." ["It should be noted" suggests a rebuttal of the claim without attributing it, and should be removed.]

* "''It is important to note'' that waterboarding and dunking are not the same thing." [Suggests the two are commonly confused, without attributing that claim. Here it may be better to leave out the sentence, and simply describe what [[waterboarding]] is.]

* "''It is important to bear in mind'' that ''/package name/'' is the most popular instant messaging program in Europe." [Importance of the fact is subjective: just state it and give a [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citation]] to support it.]

===Adverbs that editorialize===

The use of certain adverbs requires care in encyclopedic writing, as they can imply an opinion or viewpoint without providing a source for it.

====''Fundamentally'', ''essentially'', ''basically'', ''simply'', ''at heart'', ''inherently''====

Adverbs such as these tend to imply a preferred viewpoint: the "fundamental nature" of a topic is inherently subjective.

Dubious use:

* "Jesus was ''at heart'' a millennial type of leader."

* "[[Napoleon Bonaparte]] was ''essentially'' a dictator."

* "Killbits are ''simply'' a flag in the Windows Registry."

* "This statement is ''basically'' factual."

The related adjective "fundamental" may be used in the sense of "central", as in "Schrödinger's Equation is considered fundamental to quantum physics" or "According to Jones, concerns about the difficulty of invading Japan were fundamental to the decision to drop the A-bomb".

Take care if applying this guideline to precise discussions of technical subjects, as many of these words, and their related adjectives are used uncontroversially, and often with a very particular meaning. Examples:

*"The resulting function is essentially bounded."

*"All simply connected sets satisfy particular properties."

*"The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus"

====''Clearly'', ''actually'', ''obviously'', ''of course''====

Some adverbs can imply that a matter is without doubt or so obvious that no explanation is necessary, whereas they often express a viewpoint or are plain rhetoric. While [[Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#State the obvious|stating the obvious]] often results in a better article, use of these words can be condescending, implying that the reader is too stupid to realize that it is obvious.

Dubious use:

* "Heinrich Himmler was ''obviously'' going to be found guilty."

* "The point of Brahms's work has, ''of course'', been lost by critics."

* "The Huron-Manistee National Forests are ''actually'' two national forests combined in 1945 for administration purposes."

====''Naturally''====

The word "naturally" could be used in either of the above cases as well, and its use should be avoided. However, it is also used when referring to the natural world, and it has a precise technical meaning in mathematics as well as a qualitative one. Assertions of naturality in the latter sense may be uncontroversial statements of mathematical consensus, or they may promote a point of view; some judgment is needed to determine which.

Acceptable use:

* "Plutonium may occur ''naturally''."

* "Cultural anthropologists assert that human beings are ''naturally'' social."

* "A finite-dimensional vector space is ''naturally'' isomorphic to its double dual."

===Avoid editorial opinion===

{{shortcut|WP:OPED|WP:EDITORIOP}}

<small>Please also read the [[#top|introduction]] of this guideline on '''words to avoid''' if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

Wikipedia should not have a view as to whether a topic or event is ''amusing'', ''interesting'', ''ironic'', ''happy'', ''sad'', (''in'')''significant'' or (''un'')''fortunate''. Avoid using adjectives like these, and their corresponding adverbs, to express an editorial opinion or a personal observation in an article. If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so and why, [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citing sources]] to support the claim. If a matter is inherently amusing, the reader should not need to be told.

It may be appropriate to use "ironic" in a context such as "[[Alabama 3]] made ironic use of a sample of a [[Jim Jones]] speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent here is that of the artist.

Human-interest writing often uses adverbs such as ''happily'' and ''sadly'' when the reader is expected to empathize with the subject's successes or failures. These are better avoided in encyclopedic writing, where the purpose is to neutrally describe events rather than to entertain the reader's sympathies.

Similarly, whereas "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" is an editorial opinion, the alternative phrase "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be acceptable if it is clear from the context why this was unfortunate. Still, it may be better to avoid the adverb altogether, and simply state "Smith could not attend."

The words "significant" and "significantly" require special care as they make a claim sound authoritative. For example, in "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote", the word "significantly" is unsupported, and should be removed unless it can be attributed, as in "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote", with a citation to support the claim.

In science and medicine the word "significant" means that a [[statistics|statistical test]] has shown that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance (see [[statistical significance]]). Do not use the word in the colloquial sense when this technical meaning might be inferred.

While music journalists and music critics refer to certain musicians as "legendary" and call certain albums "classic" or "seminal" in their published reviews and articles, Wikipedia editors should not independently add these adjectives unless their use is supported by a reputable source. ("According to the ''Penguin Encyclopedia'' of music, John Smith was 'a legendary guitarist whose classic 1980s albums are considered to be seminal roots of rock records'.")

===Death and dying===

{{shortcut|WP:EUPHEMISM}}

<small>Please also read the [[#top|introduction]] of this guideline on '''words to avoid''' if you came via a direct link to this subsection.</small>

When writing about death, avoid editorializing phrases such as "died tragically", "untimely death", "unfortunate loss", or "horrible death". Everyone's death is sad or tragic to those who love and admire them; few are "timely". To show a death is tragic or sad, provide relevant facts from reliable sources. Whether a death is horrible or not is a subjective question: if the cause of death is notable, describe what happened, citing sources, and let the reader decide.

Avoid [[cliché]]s about death, such as "he died doing what he loved" or "his death was the end of an era", and [[euphemism]]s such as "gave his life", "passed away", "passed over", "left his body", or "returned to God". The word ''died'' is religiously neutral, and neither crude nor vulgar.

===[[First person]] and [[second person]] pronouns===

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Grammar}}

First person and second person pronouns such as "I", "you," and "we" are inappropriate for encyclopedia articles.

==Words with multiple meanings==

===Theories and hypotheses===

Do not use ''[[theory]]'' to mean ''guess'' or ''speculation''; however, the verb ''to theorize'' may be appropriate for learned speculation.

In the [[natural science]]s and other academic fields, a theory is a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests. Well-known examples are [[Albert Einstein]]'s theory of [[general relativity]], [[B.F. Skinner]]'s theory of [[reinforcement]],<ref>Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts ISBN 0-13-171728-6.</ref> and the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]]. Theories are open to constant scrutiny that often reveals their limitations, as with [[Isaac Newton]]'s [[Newton's law of universal gravitation|theory of gravity]], but they remain highly accurate descriptions of observable data within these limitations.

In [[mathematics]], ''theory'' is used to refer to a body of knowledge consisting of many theorems about related objects, as with [[Galois theory]] or [[Representation theory]]. A ''[[theorem]]'' is a proven result, and a ''conjecture'' is a proposed but unproven hypothesis.

In [[philosophy]], the term ''theory'' is sometimes used to describe a historically well-established line of thinking, or a class of reasoned philosophical ideas, as with [[correspondence theory of truth]] or the [[consensus theory of truth]].

In all cases, a theory is a system of thought used to explain phenomena. For speculations and guesses, use a word such as "[[hypothesis]]" or "[[conjecture]]" instead.

===Religion===

Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources.

''[[Wikt:cult|Cult]]'' has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in [[sociology]] to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended. The adjective [[wikt:cultic|cultic]] may be preferable in such cases. A second exception concerns a reference to a particular religious practice, such as "the cult of [[Demeter]] at [[Eleusina|Eleusis]]" or "[http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/canonlaw.htm the cult of the saints]". See [[cult (religious practice)]].

''[[Wikt:sect|Sect]]'' likewise has several different meanings, but has fewer negative connotations. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. However, the word may or may not imply novelty or tension. It can also imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group. Consequently its use can promote a point of view unless its meaning is clearly defined. For novel religions, the term ''[[new religious movement]]'' may be more appropriate: see [[list of new religious movements]].

''[[Wikt:fundamentalism|Fundamentalism]]'' refers to "the tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts." A [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] is not necessarily an extremist. However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. Consequently, it should primarily be used for groups that are ''self-described'' fundamentalists. For groups labeled as fundamentalists by others, the term should be attributed to the source.

''[[Wikt:heresy|Heresy]]'' refers to beliefs held by members of a religious group which are in conflict with the orthodox doctrine of the group. It should not be used to refer to external opposition to a religion, and its use should be supported by reliable sources.

===Controversy and scandal===

A ''[[Wikt:controversy|controversy]]'' is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words ''scandal'' and ''affair'', and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and ''only'' when it is interchangeable with the words ''debate'' or ''dispute'', for example:

*The [[AACS encryption key controversy]] was a real-life ''dispute'' regarding whether the AACS encryption key would and should be illegal;

*The [[Question Time British National Party controversy]] was a real-life ''debate'' about whether an elected politician with far-right views should receive an invitation to appear on a publicly funded political panel show;.

Whereas:

*The termination of [[Isaiah Washington]]'s ''[[Grey's Anatomy]]'' contract for alleged homophobic remarks to his co-star was ''not'' controversial because there was no debate or dispute that Washington should be sacked for making the comments. The comments he made were not controversial either; while his remarks were ''offensive'', this does not mean they were ''controversial''.

When using words such as ''controversy'' or ''conflict'', make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict. Consider using the term ''incident'' or other neutral wording when there is no dispute.

The words ''[[Wikt:scandal|scandal]]'', ''[[Wikt:affair|affair]]'', and ''[[Wikt:-gate|-gate]]'' are often used in [[journalism]] to describe a controversial episode or in [[politics]] to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles ''except'' in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., [[Teapot Dome scandal]], [[Dreyfus affair]] or [[Watergate scandal]]).

===Solutions===

The word ''[[wikt:solution|solution]]'' should be confined to its use in chemistry, mathematics and problem solving. It should ''not'' be used to refer to products, services, software or a combination of these things, since such usage implies that the product or service solves the problem it is intended to solve: the word "solution" should instead be replaced by a concrete descriptive term for the type of product, such as "software". ''Solution'' often is used simply as a [[buzzword]] that can be eliminated altogether with no loss of meaning.

Dubious use:

*"The company offers web hosting ''solutions'' for e-business..." Instead say "The company offers web hosting for e-business..." (if that is what it does).

Acceptable use:

*"A ''solution'' of sodium chloride in water..."

*"The ''solution'' to the chess problem involves the sacrifice of the knight..."

===Myth and legend===

{{see also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion}}

''[[wikt:myth|Myth]]'' has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

When using ''myth'' in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word ''myth'' is being used informally or even pejoratively.

A ''[[wikt:legendary|legendary]]'' person can mean

* a fictitious person about whom legends and myths are written.

* a person who is so celebrated that they have taken on the nature of a legend.

These meanings are easily confused, and so it is best to avoid the word. Use "fictional" to describe a non-existent person.

The phrase "''[[wikt:legend|legend]] has it that...''" should be avoided.

===See and saw===

A construction using the words "see" or "saw" to describe an event that took place should be avoided where it results in a sentence saying that an inanimate object, period of time, or any other noun without visual organs "saw" something.

Examples to avoid:

*1999 saw the repeal of part of the [[Glass–Steagall Act]] by the [[Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act]].

*[[Vanessa Hudgens]]'s second album ''[[Identified]]'' saw limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the [[UK Albums Chart]].

The above sentences could be replaced by:

*In 1999, the [[Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act]] repealed part of the [[Glass–Steagall Act]].

*[[Vanessa Hudgens]]'s second album ''[[Identified]]'' experienced limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the [[UK Albums Chart]].

The second sentence could also be replaced by "[[Vanessa Hudgens]] saw her second album ''[[Identified]]'' experience limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the [[UK Albums Chart]]", as Vanessa Hudgens has eyes and is capable of seeing things.

==Article and section titles==

{{seealso|Wikipedia:Article titles}}

Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion.

For example, the title "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is inappropriate because it suggests a viewpoint on whether there was such a conspiracy.

The appropriateness of a word may depend on the topic. For instance, the existing article on "[[Sodomy]]" is an article about the word itself, both in common and legal use. This is appropriate, whereas it would not be appropriate to use the word in the title of an article about homosexuality.

A non-neutral title can make an article hard to balance. For instance article titles of the form "Criticism of..." should be avoided where possible. For critical reaction to a work, consider instead "Critique of..." or "Reaction to...".

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

{{sister|project=wikisource

|text=''[[The Elements of Style]]'' has a section on words that are

'''[[Wikisource:The Elements of Style/Misuse|commonly misused]]'''

}}

* [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]]

* [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]]

* [[Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project]]

* [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]

* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]]

* [[Wikipedia:Use modern English]]

[[Category:Wikipedia how-to|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[es:Wikipedia:Palabras que evitar]]

[[fr:Wikipédia:Termes à utiliser avec précaution]]

[[gan:Wikipedia:贛語本字]]

[[ja:Wikipedia:避けたい言葉]]

[[wuu:Wikipedia:用词指南]]

[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:粵語本字]]

[[zh:Wikipedia:避免使用的字詞]]