ৱিকিপিডিয়া:Manual of Style/Words to watchৰ উৎস চাওক

<noinclude>{{pp-semi|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{redirect|WP:WORDS|the policy on articles about words|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary}}
{{redirect|WP:AVOID||Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions}}
{{style-guideline|WP:VAGUE|WP:W2W|WP:WTW|WP:WORDS|WP:WTA|sortkey=Words to watch}}
{{Policy in a nutshell|Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language.}}
[[File:Peacock.png|right|250px]]
{{style}}

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view.

The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies&mdash;[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]], [[WP:NOR|No original research]], and [[WP:V|Verifiability]]. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources; see the [[WP:MOS#Quotations|section on quotations]] in the main Manual of Style.

==Words that may introduce bias==

===Puffery===
{{Quote box4
 |quote  =  <big>'''... legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso ...'''</big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}} {{shortcut|WP:PEA|WP:PEACOCK}}

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. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.<ref>The template {{tl|Peacock term}} is available for inline notation of such language where used inappropriately.</ref>

*'''Peacock example:'''
:* Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.

*'''Just the facts:'''
:*Dylan was included in [[Time (magazine)|''Time'']]'s [[Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century|100: The Most Important People of the Century]], where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.time.com/time/time100/artists/profile/dylan.html| title = The Time 100: Bob Dylan| author = Cocks, Jay| date = June 14, 1999| accessdate = October 5, 2008| publisher = ''Time''}}</ref> By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.<ref>Grossman, Loyd. ''A Social History of Rock Music: From the Greasers to Glitter Rock'' (McKay: 1976), p. 66.</ref>

=== Contentious labels ===
{{Shortcut|WP:LABEL|WP:TERRORIST}}
{{Quote box4
|quote  = <big>'''... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ...'''</big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}

Value-laden labels&mdash;such as calling an organization a ''cult'', an individual a ''racist'', ''terrorist'', or ''freedom fighter'', or a sexual practice a ''perversion''&mdash;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.

The prefix ''pseudo-'' indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ''[[List of scandals with "-gate" suffix|-gate]]'' suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally, with in-text attribution if in doubt. When using ''controversial'', give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|fringe viewpoint]] undue weight.<ref>The template {{tl|POV-statement}} is available for inline notation of such language where used inappropriately.</ref>

===Unsupported attributions===
{{shortcut|WP:WEASEL}}
[[File:Weasel words.svg|left|200px]]
{{Quote box4
 |quote  =  <big>'''... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...''' </big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}
Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "[[weasel word]]s" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and 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.<ref>The templates {{tl|Who}}, {{tl|Which?}}, {{tl|By whom}}, or {{tl|Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request that an individual statement be more clearly attributed.</ref>

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the [[WP:LEAD|lead section]] of an article or in a [[topic sentence]] of a paragraph, whereby the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.
{{Clear}}

===Expressions of doubt===
{{shortcut|WP:ALLEGED}}
{{Quote box4
 |quote  =  <big>'''... supposed, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...''' </big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}
Words such as ''supposed'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate. ''Alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When ''alleged'' or ''accused'' is 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.

=== Editorializing===
{{shortcut|WP:EDITORIAL|WP:OPED|WP:EDITORIALIZING}}
{{Quote box4
 |quote  =  <big>'''... notably, interestingly, it should be noted, clearly, certainly, without a doubt, of course, fortunately, happily, unfortunately, tragically, untimely ...'''</big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}
The 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 to maintain an [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Impartial tone|impartial tone]]. Words such as ''fundamentally, essentially'', and ''basically'' can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. ''Clearly, obviously, naturally'', and ''of course'' all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and are often excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was ''fortunate'' or not.

More subtly, editorializing can produce [[WP:SYNTH|implications not supported by the sources]]. Words such as ''but'', ''however'', and ''although'' may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

===Synonyms for ''said''===
{{Shortcut|WP:SAY|WP:CLAIM}}
{{Quote box4
 |quote  = <big>'''... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...'''</big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}
''Said'', ''stated'', ''described'', ''wrote'', and ''according to'' are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more [[loaded language|loaded]] terms. For example, to write that a person ''revealed'', ''pointed out'', ''exposed'', ''explained'', or ''found'' something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone ''noted'', ''observed,'' ''insisted'', ''speculated'', or ''surmised'' can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone ''claimed'' or ''asserted'' something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of ''admit'', ''confess'', and ''deny'', particularly of [[WP:BLP|living people]], because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

==Expressions that lack precision==
===Euphemisms===
{{shortcut|WP:EUPHEMISM}}
{{Quote box4
 |quote  =  <big>'''... passed away, gave his life, resting place, make love, an issue with, collateral damage, ethnic cleansing, living with cancer, sightless, people with blindness ...'''</big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}
The word ''died'' is neutral and accurate; avoid [[euphemism]]s such as ''passed away''. Likewise, ''have sex'' is neutral; the euphemism ''make love'' is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use ''issue'' for ''problem'' or ''dispute'', nor ''ethnic cleansing'' for ''mass murder'' or ''genocide''; ''civilian casualties'' should not be masked as ''collateral damage''.

If a person ''has'' an affliction, or ''is'' afflicted, say just that; ''living with'' is a verbose softener. Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate.<ref>The [[National Federation of the Blind (United States)|National Federation of the Blind]], for instance, opposes terms such as ''sightless'' in favor of the straightforward ''blind''. Similarly, the group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as ''people with blindness'' for the plain phrase ''blind people''; see [http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm93/brlm9308.htm#2 Resolution 93-01], National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.</ref>

=== Clichés and idioms ===
{{shortcut|WP:CLICHE|WP:IDIOM}}
{{Quote box4
 |quote  =  <big>'''... lion's share, tip of the iceberg, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...'''</big>
|width  = 70%
|align  = center
}}
[[Cliché]]s and [[idiom]]s are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. ''Lion's share'' is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as ''all, most'', or ''two-thirds''. The ''tip of the iceberg'' should be reserved for descriptions of [[iceberg]]s; the ''small portion evident'' conveys the substance without ''gilding the lily''. People in Wikipedia articles do not ''take the plunge'', they simply ''do'' things. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded. For more examples, [[Wiktionary]] includes a lengthy [[wikt:Category:English idioms|list of English idioms]].

===Relative time references===
{{shortcut|WP:RELTIME}}
{{Quote box4
 |quote = <big>'''... recently, lately, presently, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, winter, spring, summer, fall, autumn ...'''</big>
 |width = 70%
 |align = center
}}
{{See also|Wikipedia:As of|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language}}
Prefer specific statements of time to general ones. Don't say, "Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith." Instead say, "A Gallup poll in April {{LOCALYEAR}} showed that Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since January." When material in an article may become out of date, follow the [[Wikipedia:As of]] guideline. Because seasons occur at various times around the world, consider instead using months or globally applicable terms such as ''mid-year'' unless the season itself is pertinent (''spring blossoms, autumn harvest'').<ref>The template {{tl|When}} is available for editors to indicate that a time period should be worded more precisely.</ref>

===Neologisms and new compounds===
{{See also|Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms}}
[[Neologism]]s are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they 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 [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a point of view. Adding ''-ism'' to a word, for instance, may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well established.

==Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities==
{{main|Wikipedia:Offensive material}}
[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored|Wikipedia is not censored]] and its [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|encyclopedic mission]] encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Quoted words should appear as in the [[WP:V|original source]]. But language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.

== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:Article titles]]

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style/Misuse ''The Elements of Style''—Words and Expressions Commonly Misused]
*[http://www.lssu.edu/banished/ Lake Superior State University Banished Words List]

[[Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (content)]]

[[ar:ويكيبيديا:تجنب_التباهي]]
[[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]]
[[pt:Wikipédia:Palavras a se tomar cuidado]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Undvik försåtliga referenser]]
[[wuu:Wikipedia:用词指南]]
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:粵語本字]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:避免使用的字詞]]