Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

See also related discussions and archives:

• Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms
• Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms
• Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

Addition to Note C suggestion

I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed. Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out. 5Q5|^✉

RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RfC concerns List of countries and dependencies by population.

This discussion asks 2 questions:

1. Given that an electronic encyclopedia or gazetteer is a permanent work in progress over longer periods of time, how appropriate is the relative time expression 'today' in the context of this list article.
2. Depending on the outcome of the opinions to Q1 , should 'today' be replaced by 'as of [date]', or another suitable explanation that the dates in the table might not be as up-to-date as inferred by the use of 'today'?

Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This RfC concerns a current case in one article, List of countries and dependencies by population. However, depending on the discussion the outcome may have implications for other articles, and/or the Manual of Style. It is also possible that such a guideline already exists but which may be hard to find, unclear or ambiguous, or simply not known to or not recognised by some edititors.

(Previous and/or major contributors to the article and its talk page and parent projects have been notified of this discussion in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS)

Guidelines

• Relative time references
• Outdated statements
• As of...

Other (for this RFC):

• Gazetteer
• WP:BRD (now 'discuss' stage)

Issue

List of countries and dependencies by population is a fairly high traffic article with 960 page watchers and 529,816 page views in the last 60 days (as of 6 June 2022). This does not mean however that the article is regularly updated. The page has been edited by 12 users since since the beginning of 2019. The lead paragraph closes with:

Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion today. –(The bolding is mine)

One editor added a {{when?}} tag to the sentence. This was followed by another editor replacing 'today' with: as of 2019.. This was then reverted back to 'today' by another editor with the edit summary: Nope, this is a population clock, so the number is as per today. Every day.

The main section of this list article is its table. Whether or not the populations are automatically updated by the 'population clock' sources such as for example in the template {{data Brazil|poptoday 1}}, the table column 'Date' shows many different years for the 243 sets of data in the table, going back to the oldest of 2015. According to their dates of retrieval, many of the referenced sources in the table do not appear to be from 'today' , or even from 2022.

This discussion asks 2 questions

1. Given that an electronic encyclopedia or gazetteer is a permanent work in progress over longer periods of time, how appropriate is the relative time expression 'today' in the context of this list article.

2. Depending on the outcome of the opinions to Q1 , should 'today' be replaced by 'as of [date]', or another suitable explanation that the dates in the table might not be as up-to-date as inferred by the use of 'today'?

Please answer in the Discussion sub-section below. Begin your comment with an asterisk: *

Proposed by: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

(Please note that this is a discussion and not a straw poll with 'support' and 'oppose' !votes. The closer will assess the consensus.)

• Hi, as you invited me to this discussion, I am here. I would suggest to change the sentence from Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion today to Also given in percent is each country's population compared with the world population, which the United Nations estimates at 7.96 billion as of (today's date). RayAdvait (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Two comments: 1) The reflections above about the main section of the article, especially that many of the referenced sources in the table do not appear to be from 'today' is irrelevant, since the use of 'today' in the context discussed explicitly is limited to the estimate of the world population. 2) Having said this, I support changing the formula from 'estimates at X billion today' to either 'estimates at X billion as of [date]' or possibly better 'estimates at X billion as of today'. Just 'today' could be interpreted as imprecise and vague, while 'as of today' clearly indicates that the current date is meant. --T*U (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps for clarity we need wording on the lines of "Also given in percent is each country's most recently available population compared with the current world population, as estimated daily by the United Nations". And possibly re-word the column header from "Percentage of the world" to "Percentage of current world pop." And perhaps re-order the columns, to put the date adjacent to the population figure it describes. PamD 08:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I like the suggestions, PamD, but the linked United Nations source is a 2019 document and I cannot see where it is updated 'daily'. (I did download and view the 2.5Mb xlsx file WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES from that site). Maybe I have missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I had naively (AGF) assumed that the template was working as described and that the UN were indeed publishing a daily estimate. It seems not - the formula in the template uses a base figure for 2019 pop and an estimated daily increase rate and does the sums, not allowing for any variation (climate change? Covid?). Perhaps in this article we would be better to use one fixed figure, perhaps the estimated population on 1 Jan 20nn, and update it each year. But which figure? As I type, I've found 3 constantly-updated figures: US census offers 7,900m, the "World Population Review" says 7,948m, and "Worldometer" has 7,952m. The UN population division say 7,954m for 2022, higher than any of the three rolling figures. Asking Wikipedia: Demographics of the world says 7.9billion, and World population says "estimated to have exceeded 7.9 billion as of November 2021". Take your pick. Perhaps we should just use the 7.9bn figure and say so, until there is general agreement that we have hit 8bn. In this article it is, after all, only the divider for a percentage. Or use the figure which is the total of the stated populations, if the table can be made to add itself up. PamD 13:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC) updated 13:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that readers may download/print off documents and thus the automatic population number will not update with those versions, while "today" will remain in place. It should be replaced with a automatic "as of" (at least to month and year) so that fixed versions will have a clear date when the population estimate should be used. --Masem (t) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• (as proposer) I think that whether downloaded or viewed online, the sources themselves that are not today's data render the claim of 'today' a misnomer. Not everyone clicks on sources to check them out - generally readers would probably take the info in the table in an uncontroversial article like this as being accurate, although effectively they are being unintentionally lied to. The problem is that readers trust our content and use it for their dissertations and research papers and possibly even in class. Hence in the scope of the MoS, to use 'today' as a relative time reference in this context would be, IMO, inaccurate/misleading. We do see the {{when?}} tag being used quite often in articles, and not without reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• As a wider MOS discussion, if there is a rare case where a figure does indeed link to a regularly-updated live statistic, then this must be clarified in the text of the article ("a current figure of xxxx (data provided by the Aaa Bbb Ccc and updated daily [/weekly, monthly, annually].)", to reassure the reader that in this rare case the "current" or "today's" is actually correct. Including today's date (or the month or year for monthly or yearly updates), for the sake of offline or print-out readers, might also be useful. PamD 13:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Saw this in CENT. I don't think it's at all appropriate, except if the person who writes today sets a timer and makes a commitment, either individually or as part of a group, to either update the referent or remove "today" every single day, without exception (breaks on weekends are negotiable). The rest of the community certainly isn't going to search through every single instance of today today (or tomorrow), even if we might be able to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a very valid comment Alpha3031. A moderate to high traffic article with frequently changing content does indeed need to be regularly updated. That's why statements in the lede or the body text need to reflect the actual state of the claims made by the authors. I have written several Wikipedia articles, and I am fully aware of WP:OWN, but rightly or wrongly, I've always taken care to update them when necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I may be wrong, but some of the arguments used here seem to indicate that not everybody is aware that the number showing up as the world population is recalculated every time the article is presented. Template:worldpop contains a formula that is based on the methodology used in the UN source, calculating the population on the current date. --T*U (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The point of this RfC is exactly that not all the data is automatically updated every time the article is loaded. The UN source is only one of the many sources used. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Won't update automatically for any offline copies. Hence why its a problem. Masem (t) 15:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why this is an RFC. It is a simple matter of changing "today" to "as of [automatically calculated full date]". Just be bold and do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's an RfC Jonesey95, because if you read the preamble,, you'll see that of WP:BRD B and R have already been done - the change was disputed. This is the 'discussion' phase. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bold edit that was Reverted (by me, by the way) was the insertion of the phrase as of 2019, simply because it was erronous. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I read it a couple of times, and it looks like "today" was replaced with "as of 2019", which is inaccurate. It should have been replaced by {{date}}, I'm pretty sure. Automatic date calculation is used at the top of the big table, so there should be no problem using similar code in the lead. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Question: Is anyone actually opposed to changing the text from estimates at X billion today to estimates at X billion as of {{date}}? If not, this discussion could be snow closed. --T*U (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It does say in the preamble that this is not a straw poll and that discussion should take precedence over 'support' and 'oppose' !votes , even if some users have been lulled in to believing that RfC are based on numerical results. Hence, as it has only been open for barely 48 hours, and as there are two questions to be discussed, it would probably be fair to allow the discussion to run until more of the notified users and those seeing the the notifications have had an opportunity to chime in and it becomes clear that no further comments will be forthcoming. Not all Wikipedia contributors remain glued to their computers 24/7 as is evidenced by the very participation of the 'regular' authors/maintainers of the article in question. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just throwing a thought in, in case it adds anything to the discussion. I've seen this RfC as advertised in Template:Cent, as "Use of 'today' as a relative time reference", and my instinctive response to that heading was "Don't". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Any use of "today" in an article becomes inaccurate tomorrow. It should not be used (nor should we count on future updates, given things like permalinks and offline copies, even if there is some setup where the text is automatically updated from some external source). Rather, "As of (appropriate time frame)" should be used, and that would be accurate even if someone read that version of the article a thousand years from now. In the event of automated updates, the "as of" date should just be auto-updated as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• "As of [date]" has no downsides to "today" and definite upside. Added clarity is a good thing, even when "today" might still be accurate. Retswerb (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• As of [date]. All instances like this where the ambiguous 'today' is used should be replaced with [date]. Any additional information that might be useful can be supplied in a note. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely seems like we should nix "today", even when it's technically correct for the most recently updated revision. Old revisions (i.e. articles in print, or reused elsewhere online) should not become wrong if we can help it. If a statistic is being updated daily (either via a template or by a diligent editor) then the date should be as well, i.e. using {{date}}. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• An interesting question. It's a fairly common phrasing in the press, but WP is not press, it's an encyclopedia. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of a blanket rule, but I think in this case, and generally throughout the encyclopedia, it should probably be avoided (although I think I may have been guilty of using it a few times myself). While I think it is generally understood that it does not mean "as of right now" it is still imprecise, implies that the article is up to date when it easily may not be, and can be easily replaced with phrasing without these issues, i.e "as of <date>", "in modern times" etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

'as of today' was first introduced to the article on 22 August 2018, and by 27 April 1921 had become simply 'today' at 7.96 billion and is still 7.96 billion today 11 June 2022. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the figure attributed to the UN in this list is not their daily estimate but a number calculated by a Wikipedia template from their 2019 estimates of World population and daily increase. We would do better to use a figure such as the 7.9bn given in Demographics of the world or the UN figure ("as of 2022") of 7,954m. PamD 05:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

We should not say "as of today". It is occasionally appropriate to say "as of [current date]", using a template that automatically substitutes the current day, month and year, when the statement and reference are both also using templates that update daily. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Stick to the sources: Setting aside the more general discussion, in the article List of countries and dependencies by population I believe it is misleading when we say "which the United Nations estimates at 8.14 billion today" (Code: which the [[United Nations]] estimates at {{#expr: {{worldpop}}/1000000000 round 2}} billion today) because the UN does not publish any such estimate. The figure we are using is derived from a 2019 estimate of population and a 2019 estimate of daily growth. The UN itself quotes a figure of 7.954bn for 2022: I think we should use that figure, saying "which the United Nations estimates as 7.954 billion as of 2022", and update it when a 2023 estimate is available from the UN. And the spuriously-accurate-looking figure of (today) "7,956,887,000" at the top of the column should be replaced by the 7.954 bn estimate. PamD 14:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

PamD, I would think that is probably the most appropriate solution. The main thing is that readers are not lulled into assuming that all the population figures in the article are accurate and up-to-date. Without prejudice to the final consensus of this discussion and an official closure, I have been bold and edited this high traffic article to reflect this suggestion, and included the source. If anyone has a different opinion, it can naturally be modified or reverted, the original text is commented out with <!-- --> tags. However, I have not edited the first entry in the table as I am not sufficiently confident to do this without breaking anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The table in the article certainly seems very complicated. I think the result would be achieved if instead of {{worldpop}} we had a new template {{worldpop-UN}} which produced a figure, currently 7,954,000,000, for the current pop and was manually updated each time the UN dashboard produced a new figure (annually?). But I think discussion on that article's talkpage might be needed. The template {{worldpop}} seems to be used in seven articles including this one (but the use in OPEC is absurd as it is the "world" figure in a column headed "Population (2018 est)"!). PamD 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is this a specific article question (in which case it probably shouldn't be on CENT...) or a "policy everywhere" question? Assuming it's the latter, I don't have any objection to changing one specific table with numbers that go out of date quickly to not use "today". However, I'd be against taking this discussion as a general prohibition about ever using "today". Today is bad for things that are obviously dated, like "Today, France has a population of 65 million." But "today" can be fine for things that are exceedingly unlikely to change without some sort of massive event, or for epic time scale topics measured in centuries or more. "The 49th parallel border established between Canada and the United States at the Oregon Treaty remains in place today" is fine, as an example. SnowFire (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your examples are fine SnowFire when used in the right context as you have explained very clearly, but perhaps the MoS needs to be updated to reflect and advise upon these differences. Hence the very reason this RfC was published on Cent rather than being solely a one-article issue discussed on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think "today" is obviously bad in this specific case for all the reasons given above, and also in most similar cases where "today" is paired with a specific number or factual claim that will necessarily become out of date very quickly. Beyond that, I think "today" and "currently" are words that should be avoided wherever possible, given that we are not here to write a real-time information source, and any given article or section may well -- currently -- end up sitting for >15 years without substantive attention. I think the existing language of the guideline expresses this reasonably well, although perhaps it needs to do so more strongly. -- Visviva (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
• I don't wish to comment on the specific example, but I would oppose quickly making a general rule against "today". Many "today" type statements are likely going to stay true for hundreds or millions of years or even forever, depending on the article and field. "There was a savanna in Africa during the African humid period, today there is the Sahara desert" is unlikely to become wrong soon. "It was generally believed by 18th century geographers that seawater could not freeze; today we know they were wrong" also does not need any "as of" as it won't ever become wrong. —Kusma (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Data referenced to today is generaly bad. Kusma just above makes good point on cases when "toady" is acceptable. Note the difference in use: Kusma's examples are cases of "something was this way once but today it is some other way" when both the exact time of change is irrelevant (presumably explained later) and the something is not expected to change anytime soon, if ever; the case in discussion is about data that changes daily, has been changing daily, and is expected to keep on changing. In the case in point (ever changing data) "today" should never be used because: 1) on print "today" will be wrong tomorrow; 2) should we miss an update, or stop updating for whatever reason, the article will become wrong. 3) The formula with an automatic update should be removed because it is inaccurate, as explained by by PamD, I add that we can't expect a growth rate estimate for 2019 to stay valid indefinetelly, not even to 2022, better have the correct estimate from 2019, than original research for 2022. - Nabla (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, this is a very unusual case and I'm wary about modifying the MOS for such a case. That said, we're talking about a template which does change every day such that the figure you see is for "today". The main reason we don't want to use today in articles is because in every other case, we're not talking about a figure that automatically updates on-wiki every day. If there's consensus we shouldn't use this auto-updating template because it's not based on sound data, is too close to WP:OR or some other reason, then the discussion is moot, but if we are going to have it I would argue that "today" is preferable to a date, but that having a bot transclude/update it with a date every day is probably ideal. Above, Masem writes Keep in mind that readers may download/print off documents and thus the automatic population number will not update with those versions, while "today" will remain in place. - It's true that people print it out. The thing is, nobody expects "today" in print to actually reflect "today". When I read a book, a magazine, etc., I know it was printed and that the pages do not automatically update. On the other hand, something people do use on Wikipedia is the page history. People look through past versions and sometimes even do so in order to see changes over time. If you have "as of [date]", then someone looks at a past version, it will show the present population (as per the template) with an incorrect date. Perhaps the best solution (again, if we're going to keep the template), is to have a bot transclude it (or just update the numbers directly) every day and include a date. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  On the issue of an article using "today" that ends up printed out is that what if there's no datestamp on the printed document? I know we're now entering the exception of the exception here, but the other scenario (looking through page history with an "as of" template) is probably about as similar odds, so there's plusses and minuses both ways. Masem (t) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• The articles should be written IN THE PAST TENSE anyway, considering ALL them are written before the readers get around to reading them. Wouldn't that solve the problem, or am I missing something? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wheelchair bound

I'd really like an outsider opinion/reassurance that changing euphemisms to be less offensive towards disabled people is a worthwhile thing and is consistent with the MOS:EUPH guidelines. I've received heavy pushback from one editor @Mathsci who considers these changes silly. I think that the guidance is crystal clear on this. The current contention is about the phrases confined to a wheelchair or being wheelchair-bound. I've tried to raise a conversation about this issue on the talk pages but those conversations seem to just be [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laughing_Under_the_Clouds#Choice_of_language rehashes ] of this one , which was already discussed on this page.

Smasongarrison (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Smasongarrison is making indiscriminate edits about plots and fictional characters in films. Often these concern comedy cartoon films or horror films (Madagascar or Frankenstein vs. Dracula). They have developed a robotic automated script, which is gradually developing. In this fictional context, it is inappropriate that these fictional plots or character descriptions should be mangled in this way. No thought seems to been applied, no reflection; they haven't bothered checking proof-reading or reading through the articles.

In the case of Charles-Valentin Alkan, they have tried to process the same stable wp:featured article twice, despite being warned by user:Smerus and me. On previous occasions, they have taken no notice (there were previous complaints in 2018). Smasongarrison's edits appear periodically on my watchlist (sometimes with articles subject to WP:DS). For example, in May 2022 they made edits to Ted Kaczynski, which were reverted. On Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan, they brushed off problems they were doing, declaring "I don't have the bandwidth to itemize their responses". It has been pointed out to Smasongarrison – who has no formal medical training – that the use of British English terms "suffering a stroke" is standard and cam be found in stroke advice for emergency treatment in the National Health Service. That seems not to have not registered with Smasongarrison, who has made four edits about Charles Dickens recently. The same with Samuel Johnson, a featured article. It's easy to see that the script is crappy: sometimes the Smasongarrison bot-script find "disabled" and does nothing; sometimes there will be replaced by an anachronistic euphemism. Who knows what the Smasongarrison script will do with the wp:featured article A Christmas Carol and the word "crippled".

The automated edits to the article Željko Đurđić shocked me: Smasongarrison's script produced unintelligible content and, given that it was of stub length, no proof reading had occurred. I had to make several corrections myself, taking into account the subject's personal circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm following MOS:MED guidance and this discussion. The script is a human being who looks at the edits and tries to be careful. Please keep the issue focused on the style guide, not on your concerns about me as a human being. I really don't appreciate being called a bot. I try to be responsive and engaging when editors raise concerns and have tried my best.

I'm not perfect, but I think that mathsci is focused on me instead of the actual issue. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mathsci#%22Suffering%22 ] Smasongarrison (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ping a few folks who were involved in the discussion @Liz @User:Johnbod. But honestly, I'm just going to take a break because I had forgotten how distressing I find dealing with Mathsci. Smasongarrison (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody would start doing this on Dracula vs. Frankenstein. This is a horror film, so clearly fictional. Being able to distinguish between fact and fiction is important. Please note WP:CANVASS (which is usually frowned on). Note also that the misguided edits to articles on fictional plots show a deliberate choice on the part of Smasongarrison; instead of following wp:consensus, Smasongarrison harms wp:featured articles. In the context of horror films or animated movies, these are not real medical conditions but just poorly devised scripts concocted by Smasongarrison's themselves. As far as I am aware, Smasongarrison has never created substaintial content on wikipedia. They have made offensive edits concerning editors who, like me, have suffered from stroke. Mathsci (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What would happen with the plot summary of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It is fictional. Mathsci (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry that I offended you by editing the term suffer within the context of a stroke. My intent was never to offend. I was genuine in my offer to avoid editing the term. However, I don't think that there's anything I can say to convince you that I am a good faith editor who has made substantial contributions both here on wikipedia AND as part of the 'poorly devised bot' team. I make mistakes and try to be responsive, and I agree that I've made mistakes (I do my best to correct them). But, I really need you to try to assume that I am a good faith editor. And I would like to convey that the last time we interacted, I was trying to navigate my own grandmother having a stroke. I was trying to distract myself by doing non-controversial edits, and I did my best to avoid conflict by shifting away from the term, because that seemed easier than explaining the nuances of ableist language. Smasongarrison (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, it's really clear that this conversation has derailed. And, that there's nothing I can say to convince you that I'm a netgood to wikipedia. And that the reason the "script is crappy" is because I am being very intentional with my edits. That indeed 'sometimes the Smasongarrison bot-script find "disabled" and does nothing' because I'm using discretion and am I person. But obviously this isn't a productive conversation. Smasongarrison (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Probably off-topic, but I have been a wheel chair and walking frame user these past 6 months (prognosis is good that it might not be permanent). I tend to regard these devices as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement. However, using 'wheelchair bound' in my case is perfectly forgivable and I don't mind it. It is a common expression even if it is not apt for Wikipedia, which I accept. I do appreciate however, that the use of euphemisms is particular to US culture whereas we Brits tend to be more plain speaking (e.g. bathroom, rest room = toilet). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Overzealous script use aside, @Mathsci: characters and plots being fictional is not on its own a sufficient justification to relax editorial standards wrt. how we describe them. Fictional characters with disabilities are, of course, not harmed by the use of ableist language, but the living humans who read those descriptions can be. This is why, for example, we don't use racial slurs to describe characters in Huck Finn, in spite of the author himself doing so. Avoiding potentially stigmatizing/biased language does not inhibit Wikipedia in providing an accurate and useful synopsis.

I don't consider myself qualified to judge the acceptability of terms like wheelchair-bound, although "suffering from [stroke/heart attack]" (i.e. an immediate painful symptom, not a chronic disease or disability) doesn't seem especially objectionable. Kudpung's input is appreciated. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 17:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

These are ableist terms. Wheelchair-bound is negative as it emphasises that some is bound i.e. tied to and therefore limited to their wheelchair which is stigmatizing and overly negative. Outside of wikipedia, I have some experience with Diversity and Inclusion. More inclusive language is wheelchair user, who uses a wheelchair etc. There's an article from the BBC, UK government guidance and Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• There is no justification in MEDMOS for changes to non-medical content, and this discussion in Archive 13 linked as justification seems more focused on text about non-fiction topics and still notes several cautions. In any case, that is not an RfC and does not carry the weight of policy or guideline. Comparing "wheelchair-bound" to the N-word in Huckleberry Finn seems rather extreme, and without community consensus, no one should be mass rewriting articles to match any idea about what style is proper unless that is to align with community consensus, such as in the MOS. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  This we should be careful about comparisons between different lived experiences (or protected characteristics as they're know in the UK Legislation). To someone who is disabled such language does have the same connotations as the N-word does to someone who is Black. That said Crossroads is right in the sense that a wholesale change would need the MOS to be updated and discussed thoroughly (perhaps via RfC) to ensure it is correct to change things that were written in language that was historically considered acceptable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Crossroads I didn't mean for this conversation to get derailed into the one about the use of phrases like suffering. Because i do agree that it's a stretch at best to use mosmod.

  I agree with a lot of what @Crossroads @Lil-unique1@RoxySaunders have said. Fundamentally, I think that we do need more explicit guidance about disability, ideally in one place, because right now it is spread all over the place.

  That's actually why I shifted into something that I *thought* was much less controversial about disability euphemisms, like wheelchair-bound, which had what I thought was clear guidance that we should avoid biased language, when an alternative exists that is less offense.

  >Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled people. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense. Smasongarrison (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Regardless, my plan is to shift away from edits in the disability arena that others consider bold. There are less bold euphemisms I can fix as I tinker with WP:AutoWikiBrowser. Smasongarrison (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is less an issue of writing style and more an issue of empathy. We are not here to win wars with one another, we are here to serve the reader. Empathy is required to accomplish this successfully. It's not a matter of whether the article in question is about fact or fiction, it's matter of doing the least harm possible, especially when that is something we can easily do simply by changing a few words. While we certainly should not and could not sanitize Wikipedia to the point where none of it could possibly offend anyone, this is an area where we can show some empathy at no cost to quality. If someone does not liek the way a particular user is going about it, that is a separate issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• It's acceptable but probably not the best. Wikipedia shouldn't change terms/expressions until it is clear their time has passed in common use. Not just that the latest style guides say this term is out of date but to the point that we are some of the last to make the change. Wikipedia shouldn't be leading any changes in language, we should be late to the party. That said, this isn't a very encyclopedic phrase regardless of time period. I don't see an issue with replacing it with something like "in a wheelchair" (another old expression) but treating it as some sort of objectionable expression seems to be a recent thing. Springee (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

As a friendly note to all involved, a Request for Comment closed in December 2021 found no rough conesnsus to change the manual of style to deprecate those two phrases nor to issue any guidance in the Manual of Style against their use. For reasons of WP:CONLEVEL, this sort of thing should probably go through an RfC if there is desired change. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's super helpful! I hadn't seen that. (I'll make sure to use look through that in the future when I'm looking at AWB edits.) Smasongarrison (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Since "wheelchair-bound" and "confined to a wheelchair" are most commonly either wrong or not provably true, they can be changed on a case-by-case basis even though there is no consensus to deprecate them in MOS. The terms are only accurate if a person cannot move or stand without a wheelchair for any length of time; even then, they have offensive connotations. However, this particular dispute seems to be about something other than contesting the manual and careful change of this inappropriate language. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I had hoped that it was just a misunderstanding... and that could be cleared up without conflict (like last month). Unfortunately, he's decided that personal attacks are acceptable, as is following my edits. I've asked him to stop repeatedly, unfortunately, he seems to have done this kind of thing before and blocking doesn't seem to stop him from doing this kind of thing. Smasongarrison (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not the first time editors have pointed out problems with these bot-like edits: articles pop up periodically on users' watchlists (often the great & the good, but very long dead – like Dracula – or is he part of the undead ...). The circumstances when I suffered stroke have been mentioned before (while editing WP). In NHS documentation, the term "suffer a stroke" is used. The edit above does not seem related to MOS issues. But returning to animated movies, is Tom and Jerry politically correct? See Tom and Jerry#Controversies. Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci this conversation is about wheelchair users and the use of wheelchair terminology. I know that you disagree with MOS:MEDLANG about the use of the word suffer. You've already expressed your opinion. You have been asked by admin to leave me alone. I now understand why you have strong feelings about strokes. I have tried to be responsive by leaving the word stroke alone. I literally removed it from my source code and added practically every page you edit to my list of pages to avoid.

I have really tried. I am not perfect. I am truly sorry that I re-editing the pages that upset you. I was trying to check over my previous edits.

But you need to stop reverting my edits. There is a policy about this WP:SUFFER and a very recent conversation about this terminology on this very page. I have tried my best to be receptive to your concerns and have disengaged when I did not have the emotional energy to argue with you at the time.

Regardless, it seems to me that you have a history of doing this to editors who disagree with you. That makes me uncomfortable. Frankly, the fact that you hold this much anger toward me really concerns me. Please leave me alone. I really don't want to fight with you over this. If you want to change the policy over on MOS:MEDLANG feel free to try. Please stop hounding *me* over it. It is not my policy.

You've been warned by a lot of admin over this kind of behavior over the years, including very recent requests by @Liz and Hammersoft: for [1] I don't want this to escalate. I genuinely want you to leave me alone because your have a long history of following users who upset you. Please spend your energy elsewhere. I have apologized for offending you and I'm trying my best to avoid you. Ask yourself if you really want to be spending your time hounding a disabled woman for making edits that are less offensive in describing disabled people. You don't have to like me, but please, leave me be. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: That seems like an overreach for that RfC closure. That there was no consensus to deprecate means there was no consensus to codify exclusion. That's all. It doesn't even mean there isn't consensus to prefer one set of terms to another. There's a huge range of words/terms that wouldn't get consensus to deprecate, even when existing guidelines make clear Wikipedia should generally avoid them. As long as something should only be avoided most of the time, it's unlikely to find consensus to deprecate. In other words, that there was no consensus to deprecate only means that -- it has no bearing on how existing guidelines are applied to articles. If Smasongarrison wanted to formally deprecate the terms then, yes, we'd need an RfC, but I'm not seeing that -- I'm seeing them replace the terms where it's appropriate to do so. This looks related. You're reading [the indeed awkwardly phrased] "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia" at WP:MEDMOS and reverting based on that, when the entire rest of that bulletpoint provides reasons not to use that phrase. That something isn't banned doesn't mean it's preferred -- so much preferred that it's worth reinstating when someone changes it to one of the "other appropriate, common, and encyclopedic ways to describe a suicide" that aren't "stigmatising and offensive to some people". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, my qualifier of if there is desired change was meant to refer to changes to the MoS itself, rather than changes to a particular article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• This wall of text without diffs, possibly copy-pasted, is impossible to follow. My disabilities (stroke and syncope) are registered with the county council. I write articles in name space. For example I added content to Napoleon recently; and today checked an OCR bio to verify content that has been disputed. IRL I have helped organising, and lecturing in, conferences at Vanderbilt University; independently I have helped Vanderbilt French exchange students with internet problems in Aix-en-Provence when I was living in the Quartier Mazarin. Mathsci (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can clearly read enough of this request to know that your actions concern me and I want you to leave me alone. Your mentioning of my alma mater is unnecessary and serves to demonstrate that you have spent a lot of energy learning about me. Smasongarrison (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said last time this came up:
Smasongarrison's edits seem largely constructive to my eye, based on a spot check. It's worth differentiating between conditions/disorders like cerebral palsy and e.g. a snowboarding accident in which someone broke their ankle. Most of the arguments I've seen about avoiding ableist language are more about the former than the latter. Still, whether we cite this guideline or something like WP:TONE, "X broke her ankle in a snowboarding accident" sounds more encyclopedic to me than "X suffered a broken ankle in a snowboarding accident".
Coming back to the present, I'm most interested in why Mathsci thinks this sort of edit is an improvement such that it's worth making multiple times. Smasongarrison and others have articulated reasons why it's preferable to say "had Asperger syndrome" rather than "suffered from Asperger syndrome", but I'm not seeing good arguments to the contrary apart from some of the changes being fiction and the phrases not being explicit deprecated, which aren't very convincing IMO. The stroke example is one which I think is a somewhat grayer area, but many of these edits are pretty clearly improvements. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit about Alkan was not made by me, but by User:Smerus. I know about Alkan and Schumann because they both used the pedal piano for Bach's chorale preludes (e.g. for BWV 622); Smerus knows far more about Alkan than me and has photographed one of his instruments in Paris. He was the main creator of the featured article; it's written in British English and the use of the word "suffered" is normal. Given the timing, it's hard to see whether Smasongarrison read or digested the articles on either composers: they do not seem to have been selected with any particular rationale, just some kind of alphabetical order. The mental problems of Alkan and Schumann are well known to musicians (I've attended lecture-recitals about the Schumanns and Brahms in that context).

Rhodedentrites can check the 40,000 edits of Smasongarrison to see whether there are any edits that contain substantial contributions to namespace. I checked a while back, and could see none. Today I randomly chose this diff and noted that Smasongarrison "allowed" the word "suffered", so that the bot-like automated script is unreliable: During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic attacks was changed to During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic seizures.

At no stage has Smasongarrison explained why they are "disabled". Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The 1884 Yale obituary is a copy-paste for the article:

NOBLE BENNET PICKETT, the eldest son of Bennet and Sarah (Giddings) Pickett, was born, January 19, 1801, in Sherman, then the North Society in New Fairfield, Conn. In his early manhood he spent ten years in teaching, while at the same time pursuing his own studies, in medicine and other subjects. In the September after his graduation he was married to Laura Giddings, of Sherman. He then settled in professional practice in North East, Duchess County, N. Y., but a year later at the urgent request of friends removed to Great Barrington, Mass., where the rest of his life was spent. His medical skill and his earnest religious character made him much beloved. He was also specially interested m the educational work of the town. He served as a member of the State Legislature during two sessions, in 1851 and 1852. His public services were cut short by blindness, which overtook him about 1870. During the last ten years of his life he also suffered much from epileptic attacks. He died suddenly at the house of his only child, a daughter, in Great Barrington, February 5, 1884, in his 84th year.

Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit about Alkan was not made by me - ??? You made the edit immediately following the one I linked and then restored the text again shortly thereafter (though Smerus did make one such edit, too). I would concede that, even though the reasons provided by you and Smerus weren't IMO very good, Smasongarrison shouldn't have made the same edit three times. They should've sought help elsewhere.

it's hard to see whether Smasongarrison read or digested the articles on either composers ... Rhodedentrites can check the 40,000 edits of Smasongarrison to see whether there are any edits that contain substantial contributions to namespace - I suspect when it comes to knowledge of this subject, nobody would challenge you and Smerus. Truly, I find the expertise of some of the editors who work on classical/opera articles impressive. Where I'd disagree is that knowing about the subject is necessary to change "suffered from Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder" to "had Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder". Some people spend their time reverting vandalism, some people adopt a typo to change across articles, some people fix dashes/hyphens, some people format references, some people remove promotional language, etc. Smasongarrison changes phrases like "suffered from Asperger syndrome" to "had Asperger syndrome", and given both this guideline and WP:TONE, that seems like a net positive that isn't going to vary all that much based on subject (i.e. an athlete, composer, and politician can all "have" Asperger syndrome without the need to say they "suffer from" it).

noted that Smasongarrison "allowed" the word "suffered", so that the bot-like automated script is unreliable - I do believe you've just provided evidence against the repeated assertion that they're making automated edits. BTW use of WP:AWB is allowed to find instances of specific phrasing. Users are responsible for each edit they make, and if they're making too many mistakes, they may lose access to AWB, but mere use of it to find those phrases is not a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI I left a pointer to this discussion at WikiProject Disability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Without looking at specific edits that may be problematic, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with changing "suffered from" or "suffered" to "had". On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone considers a stroke anything other than a negative experience. This makes me wonder whether we would say "enjoyed great success" or would "achieved great success" be better or is that still a judgement? How often do we imply failure is bad and success good? Is it too stigmatizing to say someone was "cured", that they were "healed", or that they "recovered"? Does that imply diseases and injuries are bad? Aren't diseases bad? Looking at the introduction to disease it says "A disease is a particular abnormal condition that negatively affects..." Is Smasongarrison going to be ok with that or will it eventually to need to be sanitized and neutered? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be mixing up the phrases "wheelchair bound" and "suffer". The former is usually simply factually incorrect, as, as has already been said above, few wheelchair users rely on them so much as to be bound to them. On the other hand one of my medical conditions is arthritis, and I, along with most other people with it, cerainly suffer when it gets bad. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: I typed out a response, but I'll just quote MOS:DISAB and WP:MEDMOS because they say it pretty concisely:

• The phrases confined to a wheelchair and wheelchair-bound should be avoided as they frame the disability and the assistive device in a negative light. They are also factually inaccurate in most cases: wheelchair users are neither physically bound to their chairs (except if falling out is a danger) nor need to remain in them, and many are in fact capable of walking, just not great distances or not consistently. Users tend to regard their wheelchairs as instruments of liberation, not places of confinement.
• Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom, which may imply helplessness: identifiers like survivor, affected person or individual with are alternate wordings. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do we really have to repeat this discussion every few months? Speaking as one of the founders and most active members of WikiProject Disability, if only a small fraction of the heat expended on these repetitious discussions were redirected to improving the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice page there might be some actual light cast on this benighted topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ALLEGED issues

I think there are some issues with the MOS:ALLEGED guideline, most specifically that 'alleged' and 'accused' need discussing separately. These two words do not hold the same meaning. While the MOS:ALLEGED guideline holds water for the likes of "supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, so-called", this follow-up: "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." is too vague and blurs the distinction between 'alleged' and 'accused'. These two words have different nuances and relationships with proof. 'Accused' as a term notably casts no aspersions about the proof or the accuser. See the definition: "claim that (someone) has done something wrong.". 'Alleged', on the other hand, often implies that there is either no evidence, the evidence is false or the accuser is only making an accusation to cast aspersions of something negative over the accused. 'Alleged' is what a lawyer rebutting an accusation might jump up and shout in court. See that definition: "said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality." - note the emphasis on "without proof" and its relationship in meaning to "undesirable qualities". 'Alleged' is all about aspersion. It is my feeling that MOS:ACCUSED should have its own section separate to MOS:ALLEGED where the difference between 'accused' and the 'alleged'-type weasel words are clearly laid out. (All definitions are from the Oxford Dictionary.) Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Issue"

EEng has deleted do not use “issue” for “problem” or “dispute”. [2] This is a recent change in use, which started out as a euphemism for ‘problem’ but seems to be treated as a standard usage by young people. There is now a semantic problem with this, because it may be unclear whether ‘issue’ is used to mean ‘issue’ or ‘problem’. So I would prefer if this wording was reinstated. But I’m not sure that it should be in the Euphemisms section. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how that differs from standard usage. Merriam-Webster has "1a(1): a vital or unsettled matter; 1a(2): concern, problem; and 1b: a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties".--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

My dictionary (Oxford Concise) has it differently. The first meaning is about issues of shares, magazines, etc. Meaning 2 is about an outgoing, outflow etc. Meaning 3 ‘a point in question; an important subject of debate or litigation’ Meaning 4 ‘a result; an outcome; a decision’. Meaning 5 ‘ Law children, progeny’ Meaning 6 ‘ archaic a discharge of blood etc.’

There is no mention of ‘problem’.

So it may be that this is a difference between British and American English, as well as a difference between recent and traditional usage. ::Sweet6970 (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)