Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts MOS:WTW WP:WTW

This page in a nutshell: Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking.

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but 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. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be.^[1] 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 be consistent with the core content policies – Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations).

If you do not feel you can improve the problematic wording of an article yourself, a template message can be added to draw the attention of other editors to an article needing a cleanup.

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors.^[a] Instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it.

Peacock example:

Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

Just the facts:

Dylan was included in Time's 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".^[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.^[2]

An article suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or, if an editor is unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template, such as {{Peacock term}}.

Puffery is an example of positively 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 "tax-and-spend politicians borrowing off the backs of our grandchildren" or "public servants ensuring crucial investment in our essential infrastructure for the public good".

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

The prefix pseudo- indicates something false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, e.g. Gamergate (harassment campaign), with in-text attribution if in doubt. 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 fringe viewpoint undue weight.^[b]

For the term pseudoscience: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the term pseudoscience, if supported by reliable sources, may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science.

For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Neologisms and new compounds, below.

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.^[c]

The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony such as "Despite the fact that fishermen catch fish, they don't tend to find any" and damning with faint praise, like "It is known that person X is skilled in golf, but is inferior to person Y." have no place in Wikipedia articles.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}}, {{By whom}}, or similar templates to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the problem).

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.

Misused punctuation can also have similar effects. Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation,^[d] may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression, so such occurrences should also be considered carefully.

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 impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretive viewpoints and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually and the modifiers only and just, which imply something being contrary to expectations; make sure the expectation is verifiable and broadly shared rather than assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view on whether an event was fortunate or not.

This kind of persuasive writing approach is also against the Wikipedia:No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion) and the Instructional and presumptuous language guideline (Wikipedia does not break the fourth wall and write at the reader, other than with navigational hatnotes).

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words 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.

In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person noted, observed, clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, confirmed, or revealed something can imply objectivity or truthfulness, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.

To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal, and deny, particularly for living persons, because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability.

In order to avoid the twin pitfalls of biased wording and tedious repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place; it is often repeated information, rather than the repetition of specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in prose.

Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Died and had sex are neutral and accurate; passed away and made love are euphemisms. Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.

If a person has a medical condition, say just that, specifying the condition to the extent that is relevant and supported by appropriate sources. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language for more guidance on writing about medical conditions.

Norms vary for expressions about disabilities and disabled people. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.^[2] The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. See also this essay by editors involved in WikiProject Disability.

Clichés and idioms should generally be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, two-thirds, or whatever matches the context. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for discussions of icebergs. If something is seen as wasteful excess, do not call it gilding the lily or a white elephant; instead, describe the wasteful thing in terms of the actions or events that led to the excess. Instead of writing that someone took the plunge, state their action matter-of-factly.

In general, if a literal reading of a phrase makes no sense given the context, the sentence needs rewording. Some idioms are common only in certain parts of the world, and many readers are not native speakers of English; articles should not presume familiarity with particular phrases. Wiktionary has a long list of English idioms, some of which should be avoided.

Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. "By December 2024 contributions had dropped" has the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped" but the first sentence retains its meaning as time passes.

Recently type constructions may be ambiguous even at the time of writing: Was it in the last week? Month? Year?^[e] The information that "The current president, Alberto Fernández, took office in 2019", or "Alberto Fernández has been president since 2019", is better rendered "Alberto Fernández became president in 2019". Wordings such as "17 years ago" or "Jones is 65 years old" should be rewritten as "in 2007", "Jones was 65 years old at the time of the incident", or "Jones was born in 1959". If a direct quote contains relative time, ensure the date of the quote is clear, such as "Joe Bloggs in 2007 called it 'one of the best books of the last decade'".

When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline, which allows information to be written in a less time-dependent way.^[f] There are also several templates for alerting readers to time-sensitive wording problems.^[g]

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".^[h] Because seasons differ between the northern and southern hemispheres, try to use months, quarters, or other non-seasonal terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Seasons of the year.

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 respondents attributed to his new position on foreign policy.^[1]" 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.^[2]"

Remember that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and does not assume particular places or times are the default. We emphasize facts and viewpoints to the same degree that they are emphasized by the reliable sources. Terms like this country should not be used.

Phrasing such as "Smith died in 1982, survived by her husband Jack and two sons" should be avoided; this information can be made more complete and spread out through the article. The "survived by" phrasing is a common way to end newspaper obituaries and legal death notices, and is relevant at the time of death or for inheritance purposes. But an encyclopedia article covers the subject's entire life, not just their death, and information about children and spouses might be presented in an infobox or in sections about the subject's personal life. From such information readers can generally infer which family members died after the subject, so this information is not usually worth highlighting explicitly except in unusual situations (such as when children predecease their parents, or an inheritance is disputed).

Even in a stub article, a different arrangement with more details sounds more like an encyclopedia and less like an obituary: "Smith married Jack in 1957. The couple had two sons. She died in 1982."

Note also that say "...survived by two children" doesn't prove that the subject only had two children; she might have had others who predeceased her. If so, obits will usually add "a third child died in infancy". Whether or not lack of mention of predeceasing children is sufficient for us to indicate that there weren't any is beyond the scope of this rule.

It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president of the United States) and an incumbent (such as Joe Biden). A newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction; for a newspaper "President Biden" and "the President" are one and the same during his tenure.

• President Biden nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court – No; whoever is US president at the time does.
• President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice – Yes, as this will always be true.
• The president nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice in 2005 – Yes, as the year makes this clear.
• The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable for events between Charles III's creation as Prince of Wales in 1958 and his accession to the throne in 2022, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely. In any event, "Charles, Prince of Wales" would usually be linked. The guest list included the Prince of Wales or The Duke and Duchess of Kent, while common in UK news sources, is ambiguous without a name.
• Former President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972 – This is incorrect because Nixon was not a former US president at the time; he was still in office. Write President Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong in 1972. The construction then-President Nixon is often superfluous, unless the context calls for distinctions between periods of Nixon's career, other holders of the office, or between other people also named Nixon.

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 undue weight to a point of view. For instance, adding -ism or -ist to a word may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well-established, that a belief's adherents are particularly dogmatic or ideological (as in abortionism), or that factual statements are actually a matter of doctrine (as in evolutionism). Some words, by their structure, can suggest extended forms that may turn out to be contentious (e.g. lesbian and transgender imply the longer words lesbianism and transgenderism, which are sometimes taken as offensive for seeming to imply a belief system or agenda).

For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Contentious labels, above.

Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting.

For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic generally refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian Peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic script and Arabian horse, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is both Arab and Muslim.

Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about a term, consult major modern dictionaries.

Wikipedia is not censored, and the inclusion of material that might offend is compatible with its purpose as an encyclopedia. Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source. However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves an article topic.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles § Careful language – precision matters, and Wikipedia cannot advise
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Subset terms – avoid redundant ones
• Wikipedia:Article titles – see especially the sections on neutrality and precision
• List of English idioms on Wiktionary

• The Elements of Style – Words and Expressions Commonly Misused