Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

"Statesman" and "nationalist"

I've been noticing that POV-leaning contributors and articles tend to use the descriptors "statesman" and "nationalist" (sometimes both) to implicitly express approval of some people, rather than the more neutral "politician".

These labels aren't necessarily contentious; they're often used by sources themselves, some of which are also clearly POV. Is this something we should try to discourage? 104.232.119.107 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A nationalist need not be a politician. —Tamfang (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, I should have specified; more talking about the use of that word for articles about politicians. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

And nationalist is hardly a neutral term; for some it is positive, for others, negative. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Same goes for anchovies. —Tamfang (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

And same for "educator"; that word seems to be absent for maligned people who were teachers at some point. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Statesman" is subjective and non-neutral. Per Cambridge, "an experienced politician, especially one who is respected for making good judgments". Wikipedia shouldn't describe people as "statesmen".

"Nationalist" reflects a particular political viewpoint and whether someone is one is somewhat subjective. Nationalism will be seen as a positive or negative by different people but "nationalist" is a neutral term for it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above; nationalist is useful and neutral language (though, context may change this), but "statesman" is unambiguously positive. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I wouldn't say it's unambiguously positive like "statesman", but I do see it in a lot of excessively promotional biography articles. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

What do we think of describing someone like Éamon de Valera or George Washington (see infobox under occupation) as a statesman? Ifly6 (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Stated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect Shenanigans

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

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

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

Bestseller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care when removing relative time references

I've just reverted/changed a couple of instances where an editor simply removed the word currently without replacing it with anything else and cited MOS:RELTIME. I felt that one edit removed a small piece of implied information from the article, and the other removed an important caveat about information being changeable. (The first involved astronomical timescales before currently could become inaccurate, so I just reverted that one. For the other I inserted a {{when?}} tag.)

I've not thought about a wording yet, but I wonder if something might be added to that section, to the effect that

• one should be careful not to inadvertently remove information or create a false impression of permanence, and that
• it's usually/often/sometimes better to edit or tag the reference than just delete it.

The point is that deleting the relative reference altogether can make things worse rather than better—it was probably inserted for a reason, which might be a valid one that can be preserved by appropriate editing. Musiconeologist (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)