Misplaced Pages

:Words to avoid - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 5 April 2006 (→Of course, naturally, obviously, clearly: +actually). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:16, 5 April 2006 by ජපස (talk | contribs) (→Of course, naturally, obviously, clearly: +actually)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages'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.		Shortcut
  • ]

There are probably no words of which one can say "they should never be used in Misplaced Pages articles". There are words that are good flags for text that is inappropriate for an article. These can, if misused, convey a meaning which editors may not intend. Poorly chosen words may subtly promote a point of view, may be unintentionally pejorative, or may be simply bad writing e.g. clichés.

Kinds of terms to avoid

In general, words or expressions should be avoided if they:

  1. are ambiguous or non-specific. See also Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words (disputed)
  2. are derogatory or offensive
  3. imply that Misplaced Pages shows support or doubt regarding a viewpoint
  4. are condescending towards the readers or because they "spoonfeed" the reader
  5. are unnecessarily flattering or very positive. See also Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms (disputed)
  6. are clichés or jargon.

Choose nouns and verbs over adjectives and adverbs (specifically avoid the latter— in today's hyped world, understatement usually has more impact than overstatement). Most terms have a place if they are used accurately and correctly and sparingly.

Words which can advance a point of view

So-called, claim(s), purported(ly), supposed(ly), alleged(ly)

These words can imply doubt, and smear a viewpoint, because they often lack a verifiable source or exact details. Sometimes these words may be necessary to clarify uncited statements or definitions written in absolute terms.

Compare the implications of the two otherwise identical sentences, "Microsoft states it will not abuse encryption keys" and "Microsoft allegedly claims it will not abuse encryption keys".

Dubious use:

  • "Physicists claim that electricity is made up of so-called electrons"
  • "Einstein supposedly invented relativity"
  • "Pink Floyd's music is purportedly high quality"
  • "Britain was America's so-called poodle in the Iraq conflict"

Acceptable use:

  • "George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks" (actual citation)
  • "According to the Boston Times, the governor is purported to have said X" (actual citation)
  • "This glow, the so-called Smith Effect, was first noticed by Y" (introducing a new term)
  • "Allegations of election fraud were never proven" (an actual specific and documented allegation is being discussed)

However, although, whereas

These words can imply that one alternative is less favored than another. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change.

Dubious use implying preference:

  • "Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others state he is just a misunderstood freedom fighter."
  • "Homeopathy says that dilute solutions can be therapeutic, although science says this is incorrect."
  • In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." can suggest that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."

Acceptable use:

  • "Before <event> <this>. However after <event> <that>."

Of course, naturally, obviously, clearly, actually

These words can imply that something is without doubt, or considered so obvious there is no need to explain, cite a source, or support it. In the sense of "wouldn't you just know it", these words are simple rhetoric, and imply a viewpoint.

Even if the matter is commonly accepted, these words are often unencyclopaedic and can be perceived as condescending. (But do state the obvious when it may result in a better article).

Occasionally "of course" or "clearly" can be useful in a step of an explanation if it is really easy to understand, yet, for clarity, useful not to skip. In such a case it keeps the reader from wondering whether the step is as simple as it looks or if there is something behind it. But often, if some readers may not know or understand it, don't make them feel uncomfortable using these terms; it is as if you are saying that they are stupid.

Dubious use:

  • "Clinton, naturally, was not impeached."
  • "Clearly we all know this to be false."
  • "Heinrich Himmler, who was obviously going to be found guilty, was sentenced."
  • "Naturally, Protestant critics have jumped on this bandwagon."
  • "The point of Brahms's work has, of course, been lost by critics."

The use of "naturally" to mean "in a natural manner", or to indicate an artificial but convenient conceptualization, is often not a problem.

Acceptable use:

  • "Plutonium may occur naturally."
  • "Cultural anthropologists assert that human beings are naturally social."
  • "Machiavelli's life falls naturally into three distinct periods."

Special considerations for "naturally"

In certain areas, especially mathematics, the words "natural" or "naturally" have precise technical meanings. For example, one might say that two objects are "naturally isomorphic". This has nothing to do with "words to avoid".

Additionally in mathematics, "natural" and "naturally" are used to indicate a criterion of intuitive quality that a particular definition or theorem possesses, a criterion that is widely considered to be an important way of judging mathematics (cf. Lakatos, MacLane, Rota, Maddy). Attributions of naturality in this sense are at risk of promoting a point of view, but may equally be perfectly uncontroversial statements of mathematical consensus; discretion is the key here, but a danger sign is if a claim is made supported only by an appeal to naturality, and without reference to an external, published authority.

Fundamentally, at heart, essentially

Expressions such as "This is fundamentally about X" imply a preferred viewpoint for categorizing things. It ignores the fact that we create all categories and can do with them as we please. People who prefer different category schemes (i.e. any two people) may disagree about the "fundamental nature" of X, and unless they share some arbitrary set of definitions they can never settle the question.

Dubious use:

  • "9/11 was fundamentally a battle between Christianity and Islam"
  • "Jesus was at heart a millennial type of leader"
  • "<politician> was essentially a dictator"

Acceptable use:

  • "Schroedinger's Equation is considered fundamental to quantum physics" (it underpins a subject)
  • "Concerns about the difficulty of invading Japan were fundamental to the decision to drop the A-bomb" (underpins a decision)

Point out, note, observe, insist, maintain that, protest

Editors sometimes create bias, intentionally or unintentionally, by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say."

Point out, note, observe

These words are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments. Sometimes these words are used to give unproven, unprovable, or subjective statements a gloss of authority:

  • "Critics of contingent fees point out that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients."

At other times, they are used to introduce statements that may indeed be factual, but which opponents may not consider important or relevant:

  • "Opponents note that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police."

Observe (as in "Critics observe...") is also sometimes used to the same effect.

Insist, maintain, protest

These words often make the party appear defensive:

  • "Salafis insist that Salafism is not a purely Arabian movement, and regard some clerics and scholars outside Arabia as proto-Salafis or Salafi-influenced."

Alternatives and suggestions

As a rule, when a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the word say or state:

  • Critics of contingent fees say that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients.

When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead:

  • Opponents argue that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police.

Although editors sometimes use these and similar words to intentionally influence the sympathies of the reader, in many cases they may simply be the result of well-intentioned editors looking for a way to avoid using the word said, which they may perceive as dull or overused. Beginning writers are often taught to realize that said or stated are nearly "invisible": you may think you're overusing it, but readers probably won't even notice it. They will notice, however, if you try to correct the "problem" by inflicting more colorful synonyms on them. If you absolutely must avoid "said," look for creative ways to rephrase the sentence:

  • According to Mayor Bimbsly, it's simply a matter of faith.
  • The official reason appeared in a later press release : "There will not be a trial due to poor response from Asia."

An adverb such as significantly makes an authoritative claim which should be supported with the proper citations. "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote" is an unsupported claim; "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote" is supported. If you do not have such a citation, leave off the adverb and just state the objective fact: "Johnson did not cast a vote."

As ever, Misplaced Pages does not normally have a view whether a matter is "amusing" or "ironic" or "interesting". If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so (and cite your source) in order to show that you're not using adverbs to express your personal observations in the article.

Words implying a value judgement

Hard, far (left/right)

As political descriptors; for example, "Jörg Haider's Far-Right 'Freedom Party'" or "Derek Hatton, the Hard-Left 'Militant' politician". The two words are relative value judgements, and do not in themselves describe a political party's policies or viewpoint; merely that they are, or are perceived to be, greatly at variance with the imagined neutral point of the writer. Likewise, the political Left of the United States shares views on certain social issues with the political Right of Canada or the Netherlands, while the political Right of the U.S. is more liberal than the Left of Saudi Arabia on the topic of women's rights; considerations such as these make presenting Left/Right affiliations very difficult to present objectively.

As an example: Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front party is described by almost all commentators outside of the party as being "far right", but they themselves deny this qualification. This has to be documented as such in the article of that party.

It may be admissible, for the sake of brevity and given the overwhelming preponderance of terminology, to refer to the Front or Front politicians as "far right" in other articles, if some quick indication of its political position is necessary. But in a main article, where there is room to describe rather than label such groups, this is not desirable.

Extremist

Much the same as "hard/far", but not limited to politics and religion. Implies that the writer considers them extreme compared to some notion of "not extreme".

Words which can imply facts that may be unsupported

Linked, associated, affiliated (to/with)

These words can imply a connection without stating the nature of the connection or discussing the evidence for and against it. Often they make a connection seem stronger than the evidence actually supports. If this connection is not well-known, it should be explained in the body of the article or provided in a wikilink or link to an external site. The description should also indicate if the organizations themselves affirm the association or if a third party is making the association.

Dubious use:

Acceptable use:

  • "Leaders of group X have a strong working association with leaders of group Y" (description)
  • "The communist party of France is affiliated with the international workers movement." (legal affiliation)
  • X Inc. shares 4 board members of its total 25 with Y Consolidated (factual statement).

Relationship

A similar obfuscating effect sometimes results from the use of the word "relationship", which besides the unclarity contained in the term "linked" adds much more when speaking without further detail about the relationship between human beings. see Lytton Strachey - Dora Carrington example

"Legend has it", "it is said"

"As legend has it..." is often a screen for lazy research or bogus invented "legends" (some of which are harmless in intention). Unattributed passive voice is a slippery substitute for "legends": "X is thought to have..." This is a special case of weasel words.

Statistics

When presenting and in particular interpreting statistics, avoid mixing proportions with cardinal numbers, such as in the sentence " In the United Kingdom, 30% of households have pets; 1.5 million of these are dogs." This doesn't tell you about the proportion of dogs to other pets; neither does it tell you the actual number of households with pets.

Another problem phrase is constructions such as "Nazi Germany had set up 300 concentration camps or prisons", or "2,000 civilians killed or injured". In the first, the truth could be 20 concentration camps and ~280 prisons; it is also ambiguous, suggesting that concentration camps are prisons and vice versa. In the second, the truth could be (and sometimes is) 1 killed and ~2,000 injured.

For the same reason the term "casualties" should be used with caution, as it typically refers to the total number of individuals killed or injured.

Statistics are often very sensitive to accurate phrasing; take care when you cite your sources to do so with precision.

Some terms are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint

A large number of terms are used in everyday speech, and are defined in the dictionary, which none the less are almost always applied by "outsiders" in some sphere, to "insiders". For example:

Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint -- that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". Most pejorative terms work this way, and many can cite wide usage. It is the fact that the usage is accepted outside but not usually inside, which means they imply a point of view, that the article too is looking from outside, not inside.

(This is not the same as political correctness. We generally seek to describe, rather than find a harmless term. So the description of Scientology as a cult is attributed to a source, the KKK is a body that has advocated white supremacism and anti-semitism, "Cripple" redirects to "Handicapped" which is not considered as POV by disabled people, and the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity... but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards".)

It's often a good idea to try and avoid terms that appear POV or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term ("X says Y").

This applies even if the term is technically accurate, or very credibly sourced, because accurate and sourced terms can in certain contexts still imply a viewpoint.

Terms such as these almost inevitably function as a description from the point of view of "outside the belief" of those to whom it is applied. It does not always imply neutrality.

Words with controversial or multiple meanings

Cult, sect

The word 'cult' itself is very controversial, and has several different meanings, often with very negative connotations. In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...". If the author wants to indicate that there is something wrong with a group by applying the cult label then the article in Misplaced Pages should focus on the question of what is wrong with the group.

One exception to this rule of thumb is the technical use this term has in sociology, which is quite neutral (i.e. small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society). However, the author shouldn't use the term in that sense without explaining exactly what he/she is doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people. The adjective "cultic" (cultic group, cultic behavior) is in such cases preferable, as it is used in sociological context referring to the technical meaning but rarely in everyday language referring to the everyday meaning of cult.

Another acceptable use of the word is in reference to religious practice, e.g. "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis" or "the cult of the saints". See cult (religion).

(For interest's sake, in French, culte means 'religious practice', while secte means both sect and cult. The same applies in Dutch, which uses cultus and sekte, and German, which uses Kult(-us) and Sekte.)

The word 'sect' is far more neutral and inoffensive. It doesn't imply novelty or tension but has a different meaning. There are lots of sects: Sufis, Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, etc., that aren't very novel and don't disturb most people. Often, sects follow guidelines that undergo some slow modification over time while cults follow charismatic leaders or written doctrine that never changes, giving all power to the person currently editing the dictionary. Bear in mind the "sect" may imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group of a larger movement, which can bring problems of non-neutrality and offense of its own.

In some cases, a good alternative would be to use the term new religious movement, coined by Eileen Barker, though some groups that are accused of being a cult are not religious.

Some people assert that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions. Christianity was considered a cult by the Roman Empire in the 1st Century. Falun Gong and some branches of Christianity are considered cults by the Chinese government. Scientology was considered a cult in the USA at one time and is still considered a cult by many in and outside the USA. Some relatively young Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian denominations call the Catholic Church a cult. What's at stake is the power to pass judgement on what beliefs are considered "mainstream" or "true".

Terrorist, terrorism

There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below.

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Misplaced Pages format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article. In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. (Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)

It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are. Examples of how Misplaced Pages has handled terrorism can be found at:

  • Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..."
  • Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in and many other countries..."
  • Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."

Encyclopedic:

  • X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
  • X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the PQR suicide bombings , is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C .
  • Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group

Not encyclopedic:

  • X is a terrorist group.
  • Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
  • After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

Arguments for and against describing an entity as "terrorist"

Arguments for:

  • It's a legitimate word and dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing bodily harm for political reasons without actually being a government." (When governments accuse each other of "state terror" you are over the line into political science)
  • The fact that most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations is not relevant to the fact that they are indeed terrorist (if they are, under a given definition). A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which has been used in Misplaced Pages, might be illuminating.
  • Unlike traditional media, Misplaced Pages can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, terrorism is a good example; it's cross-linked to asymmetric warfare and doublespeak and guerrilla and assassin, etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say why we're doing that--say exactly who is calling whom a terrorist, etc.
  • The term does not reflect a bias towards any political orientation, as it refers to the methods and not to the opinions and beliefs shared by the terrorist group. For example, both left-wing groups trying to conduct revolution and right-wing racist groups trying to stop immigration may be termed terrorist.
  • The fact that the term is often misused does not mean that it should not be used at all.

Arguments against:

  • There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
  • Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.
  • Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.
  • Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist".
  • There is no hope that we will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.
  • The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is dubious indeed; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".
  • If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:
  • State of Israel, but also the states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban
  • The Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization, but also the United States and CIA
  • Almost all guerrilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist", but almost all guerrilla groups accuse countries they fight against of being "terrorist" too.
  • Groups conducting revolution, such as the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), are routinely denigrated as "terrorist". But other revolutionary organizations such as the American Revolutionary Sons of Liberty—revered in the United States—might have been considered "terrorists" by today's definitions and standards too.
  • Resistance movement during World War II. Some historians even claim that resistance in Poland used biological weapons.
  • All forms of colonization which exposed indigenous peoples to diseases they had no immunity to, especially if they were vaguely aware they were doing it.
These examples also suggest the standards for applying the label depend upon perspective and are not consistent.
  • The word "Terrorist" is pejorative. Regardless of how much we want to assign a pejorative term to a person, a group, or our enemy, doing so is not encyclopedic. For example, even if everyone agrees that Bill Clinton is evil, we can't make an article entitled "the evil Bill Clinton." Doing so is not encyclopedic.

Comments from other articles on the definition of "terrorism"

From the article Definition of terrorism:

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used. For this reason, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

From the article Terrorism:

The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified...
Because of the above pejorative connotations, those accused of being 'terrorists' rarely identify themselves as such, and instead typically use terms that reference their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla (from guerra Spanish for 'war' meaning 'small war'), rebel, jihadi and mujaheddin (both meaning 'struggler'), or fedayeen ('prepared for martyrdom').

The article terrorism attempts to describe a definition of terrorism which is widely held in many overlapping views.

Fundamentalist

Originally, the word meant "one who rejects ritual and later adaptations, and instead follows the fundamentals of their religion". However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. This sense is also sometimes used in the media and by critics of specific religions.

A fundamentalist is not necessarily an extremist, or even particularly morally strict.

The word should be primarily used for those people or sects which are self-described fundamentalists (of which there are many). If a group does not do so, it is better to use their own self-description, within the limits of reasonableness, or to use a more specific description, since this represents them as they see themselves. If others criticize this, or label them as "fundamentalist", then this can be cited and the term attributed to that source.

Theory

In science, a theory is an explanation of nature which is consistent with the available scientific evidence and supported by repeatable experiments. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations. Except in mathematics (or other mathematical sciences, such as theoretical physics or theoretical computer science), a theory cannot be proven to be correct. Confidence in a theory is reinforced by experimentations, if the results fit it. A theory may be disproven if it is contradicted by observations. Scientific theories such that the confidence in them is so high that nobody reasonably doubts their validity are sometimes referred to as "laws" or even "facts". An example is the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

In mathematics, the terms "theorem" or "lemma", meaning a proven result, and "conjecture", meaning a proposed but unproven hypothesis, are more common.

A common misperception is the belief that a theory just means a "guess". A theory is not only an educated and informed guess, but the best explanation according to available knowledge. Ideally it will have been tested carefully to attempt to determine whether or not it matches visible events, before cautiously beginning to believe it.

Do not use theory to mean guess or speculation. In science these are known as "Hypotheses".

Myth

Myth has multiple technical meanings in different fields, as well as several everyday meanings:

  • The word myth in sociology is a story that is important for a group but not verifiable. Lack of verifiability does not necessarily indicate falsehood; "Hindu myth" may refer to historic events for which no objective record exists.
  • In folkloristic terms, it means a sacred narrative which is believed to be true.
  • In common use, myth refers to a story which is believed to be false.

Except in rare cases (e.g. urban myth), the common meaning should neither be used, nor assumed. Do not use phrases such as "evolution is a myth" or "the myth of the Holocaust", to imply "something that is commonly believed but untrue", or propaganda.

Myth is perfectly valid in its technical sense, for example in an article about religious beliefs. Another proper use would be "The Descent of Man was one of the central myths in 20th century biology", but even this statement cannot be used in an article without establishing the context of sociology, in case the reader thinks that this means that contemporary opinion holds the book to be complete speculation or false propaganda (which is not the intent).

Sometimes people object to the use of myth to describe stories which they believe strongly in. Such uses may be perceived as non-neutral. One should be careful to word such sentences in order to avoid implying that a myth is necessarily untrue. Likewise, while it should be obvious, we should not refer to "Christian belief" but "Wiccan" or "Hindu" myth.

Words that mean the opposite in UK and US English

A small number of words mean the opposite in UK English to what they do in US English. These should be avoided where possible. Where this is not possible, a brief explanation of which meaning of the word should be given. Examples of this include: public school, to table, and trapezium. (See List of words having different meanings in British and American English.)

Article structures which can imply a view

see also: Misplaced Pages:Criticism

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

From Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view:

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details.

See also

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid Add topic