| Revision as of 11:24, 16 February 2009 editFimusTauri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,045 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:13, 16 February 2009 edit undoVanished User 0001 (talk | contribs)5,337 edits CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| Suggestions for other pages welcomed. | Suggestions for other pages welcomed. {{unsigned|FimusTauri}} | ||
| ===Responses=== | ===Responses=== | ||
| Before commenting I need to make it clear that I am the so called adherent editing policy to justify my point of view that Fimus mentioned. I need to give a little more history than Fimus offers. As his third paragraph alludes to, this proposal is an attempt to remove or restrict use of the term myth. It follows discussions on the ] talk page, the ] talk page, the ] and the ], the latter three of which Fimus started. More than this, it seems like an attempt to circumvent scholarship on the issue, and instead | |||
| Putting all of that aside though, this proposal seems like an awfully long way to say "write well", and I think that is handled more than adequately in many other guidelines. With respect to the term myth that Fimus is concerned about, in religious articles the intended meaning of the word is clear. On top of being an article related to religion, to say specifically ''featuring in the myths of Abrahamic religions'', as in the Noah's Ark article, is more than enough context to draw upon the . This is not a defence of the current version, though it was the comprimise reached on the articles talk page. | |||
| Speaking even more generally than the term myth though, I don't think it's possible to have an overarching policy on a choice of terms. It's something that is probably best off handled on a topic by topic basis, where a reflection of the terminology used in the reliable sources and good writing should be our guide, and the talk page of articles used for discussion. Consider for instance the term 'theory', and how this guideline would apply to it. Certainly the term is ambiguous, yes we should use it in the ] article, no we shouldn't use it in the ] article, and, as an example of poor writing, no we shouldn't write 'evolution is just a theory' in the ] article. Cheers, ] (]) 13:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:13, 16 February 2009
This article is a proposal for a policy on the use of ambiguous words.
Why should there be a policy on ambiguous words?
The simple answer to this is because there isn’t one. Whilst some aspects of this proposal are covered by other policies, such as verifiability and neutral point of view, the lack of clear guidelines on ambiguous terms has led to arguments over the interpretation of these policies. Specifically, it has led to heated arguments over “POV-pushing” because the current (lack of) guidelines allows ambiguous terms to be used in a way that some editors see as non-neutral. Currently, the only references to ambiguous terms are some examples given in the NPOV FAQ. There is no “over-arching” policy or guideline and the examples given are inconsistent in their application. Worse still, some of these examples have been written by adherents of one side or the other of the various arguments in an apparent attempt to “justify” their point of view.
I believe that a coherent policy on ambiguous words will lead to fewer arguments and lead to more genuinely neutral articles. The policy, after all, does not actually ask editors to do very much: avoid “woolly” terminology; provide a viewpoint for terms that are open to interpretation; and provide context or explanation to clarify which definition is intended when a term has multiple definitions. This really isn’t a lot to ask, but it has wide-ranging ramifications.
In the context of where I entered this debate, the article Noah’s Ark, it would not be sufficiently unambiguous to use the current lead, as this lead includes the word “myths” to describe the story. Whilst some editors have argued that this is the correct term, used by academics and easily cited, others have argued that the term “myth” can also mean “a made-up story” and that this is the more common understanding of the term among the general populace. If the current article is adopted as policy, then the term “myths” in the lead of the Noah’s Ark article would require additional context or explanation. Because it is currently in the lead, this would almost certainly be unworkable, as it would make the lead so cumbersome as to be unfit according to the manual of style.
Articles need to be concise; but not at the expense of clarity. I believe that a clear policy on ambiguous terms will help create greater clarity.
This discussion has been flagged on the following pages:
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Manual of Style
- Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style
- Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ
Suggestions for other pages welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FimusTauri (talk • contribs)
Responses
Before commenting I need to make it clear that I am the so called adherent editing policy to justify my point of view that Fimus mentioned. I need to give a little more history than Fimus offers. As his third paragraph alludes to, this proposal is an attempt to remove or restrict use of the term myth. It follows discussions on the Noah's Ark talk page, the Christian mythology talk page, the village pump and the NPOV talk page, the latter three of which Fimus started. More than this, it seems like an attempt to circumvent scholarship on the issue, and instead Let the reader make up his own mind. That is true NPOV.
Putting all of that aside though, this proposal seems like an awfully long way to say "write well", and I think that is handled more than adequately in many other guidelines. With respect to the term myth that Fimus is concerned about, in religious articles the intended meaning of the word is clear. On top of being an article related to religion, to say specifically featuring in the myths of Abrahamic religions, as in the Noah's Ark article, is more than enough context to draw upon the intended meaning. This is not a defence of the current version, though it was the comprimise reached on the articles talk page.
Speaking even more generally than the term myth though, I don't think it's possible to have an overarching policy on a choice of terms. It's something that is probably best off handled on a topic by topic basis, where a reflection of the terminology used in the reliable sources and good writing should be our guide, and the talk page of articles used for discussion. Consider for instance the term 'theory', and how this guideline would apply to it. Certainly the term is ambiguous, yes we should use it in the general relativity article, no we shouldn't use it in the intelligent design article, and, as an example of poor writing, no we shouldn't write 'evolution is just a theory' in the evolution article. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)