BattleTechWiki:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There are no wrong way to express ideas on the BattleTechWiki, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias. As such editors need to strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.

The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be. Some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts. What matters is that articles should be well-written and be consistent with the core content policies – Policy:Neutral point of view, Policy:Canon, and Policy:Verifiability. The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources.

If you do not feel you can improve the problematic wording of an article yourself, a template message can be added to draw the attention of other editors to an article needing a cleanup.

Words that may introduce bias

Puffery

Words to watch: legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal ...

Avoid using words like these without proper attribution in articles, as they often promote the subject without providing verifiable information. Instead of making subjective statements about a subject's importance, rely on facts and attribution to demonstrate it. If an article contains such language, it should be rewritten to correct the issue. If uncertain about how to make corrections, editors can use an appropriate template. Puffery, which involves positively loaded language, should be avoided, and the same goes for negatively loaded language.

Contentious labels

Words to watch: cult, misogynistic, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, myth, pseudo-, controversial ...

Avoid using subjective and contentious labels. Instead of describing individuals with vague terms, provide readers with relevant information about the subject. Also, ensure that reliable sources confirm the existence of a controversy and that the term used doesn't give undue weight.

Unsupported attributions

Words to watch: some people say, it is believed/regarded/considered, many are of the opinion, most feel, it is often reported, it is widely thought, it is often said, officially, is widely regarded as, X has been described as Y ...

Weasel words are phrases designed to make it seem like something specific and meaningful has been communicated, but in reality, only a vague or ambiguous claim is presented. Vague attribution is a common form of weasel wording, where a statement is given authority without a solid basis. Phrases like these create an appearance of support for statements, but can prevent readers from assessing the source and may hide a biased view. Claims about people's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, or demonstrated facts should be clearly attributed. The examples provided are not automatically weasel words; they might be used in introductory sections, and the rest of the content can provide proper attribution. Similarly, expressions used by reliable sources can employ similar language if it accurately represents their opinions.

Expressions of doubt

Words to watch: supposed, apparent, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...

Certain words like supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can suggest inaccuracy, especially alleged and accused when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. When using these terms, make sure to clarify the source of the accusation. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and distinguishing between these meanings can be challenging. Prefer "simply called" for the first meaning, and provide detailed and attributed explanations for the others.

Improper punctuation, such as misused quotation marks, can have similar effects. When not used for an actual quotation, quotation marks might be interpreted as scare quotes, indicating the writer's distance from the common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis can transform a neutral word into a loaded expression, so it's essential to consider such instances carefully.

Editorializing

Words to watch: notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, utterly, actually, only, clearly, absolutely, of course, without a doubt, indeed, happily, sadly, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely ...

Avoid using adverbs like notably and interestingly, as well as phrases like "it should be noted," without attributing the opinion, to maintain an impartial tone. Words like fundamentally, essentially, and basically should be attributed in controversial cases as they indicate specific interpretive viewpoints. Exercise caution with actually, only, and just, which imply something contrary to expectations; ensure the expectation is verifiable and broadly shared. Terms like clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course presume too much about the reader's knowledge and often amount to unnecessary words. BattleTechWiki should not express a view on whether an event was fortunate or not.

Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...

Editorializing can subtly create unsupported implications from sources. When connecting two statements, words like but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship that doesn't exist. This can potentially question the validity of the first statement unfairly while giving too much weight to the credibility of the second.

Synonyms for said

Words to watch: reveal, point out, clarify, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny ...

In certain types of writing, using "said" repeatedly is seen as boring, and writers are advised to use synonyms. On BTW, it's crucial to avoid language that implies too much.

Neutral and accurate terms like said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are typically safe. Exercise caution with more loaded terms. For instance, saying someone clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it's true, instead of just conveying that it was said. Using words like insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even if unverifiable.

Saying someone asserted or claimed something may question their statement's credibility by emphasizing potential contradictions or implying a lack of evidence. Be careful with admit, confess, reveal, and deny, especially for living persons, as these verbs can inappropriately imply guilt.

To avoid biased wording and the monotonous repetition of "he said ... she said ...", consider rewriting the prose to eliminate the need for such verbs. Often, it's the repeated information, not the specific words, that creates a sense of repetition in writing.

Expressions that lack precision

Euphemisms

Words to watch: passed away, gave her life, eternal rest, make love, an issue with, collateral damage ...

Prefer neutral and precise terms over euphemisms. Use straightforward language like "died" and "had sex" instead of euphemisms like "passed away" and "made love." Be cautious with words that may have euphemistic meanings; for example, avoid masking civilian casualties as "collateral damage."

Clichés and idioms

Words to watch: lion's share, tip of the iceberg, white elephant, gild the lily, take the plunge, ace up the sleeve, bird in the hand, twist of fate, at the end of the day ...

Prefer direct and literal expressions over clichés and idioms. Instead of "lion's share," use terms like "all," "most," or specific percentages. Save "the tip of the iceberg" for discussions about icebergs. If something is wasteful, avoid phrases like "gilding the lily" or "white elephant"; describe the wastefulness in terms of the actions or events. Rather than saying someone "took the plunge," state their action plainly.

If a phrase doesn't make sense literally in the context, reword the sentence. Many readers aren't native English speakers, so don't assume familiarity with specific idioms. Wiktionary has a long list of English idioms, some of which should be avoided.

Relative time references

Words to watch: recently, lately, currently, today, presently, to date, 15 years ago, formerly, in the past, traditionally, this/last/next (year/month/winter/spring/summer/fall/autumn), yesterday, tomorrow, in the future, now, to this day, soon, since ...

Prefer using absolute time specifications over relative ones like "recently" or "currently" to avoid becoming outdated. For example, "By April 2024 contributions had dropped" conveys the same meaning as "Recently, contributions have dropped," but the first sentence remains accurate over time. Relative constructions may also be unclear, causing ambiguity about the timeframe. Instead of saying "The current First Prince, Julian Davion, took office in 3147," or "Julian Davion has been First Prince since 3147," use "Julian Davion became First Prince in 3147" for clarity. Rewrite phrases like "17 years ago" or "Julian is 40 years old" as "in 3147," "Julian was 40 years old at the time of the incident," or "Julian was born in 3107." When using a direct quote with relative time, make sure the quote's date is evident.

Unspecified places or events

Words to watch: this country, here, there, somewhere, sometimes, often, occasionally, somehow ...

As in the previous section, prefer specific statements to general ones. It is better to use explicit descriptions, based on reliable sources, of when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying "In April 2012, Senator Smith somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%", say "In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which respondents attributed to his new position on foreign policy.^[1]" Instead of saying "Senator Smith often discusses foreign policy in his speeches", say "Senator Smith discussed foreign policy during his election campaign, and subsequently during his victory speech at the State Convention Center.^[2]"

As with the previous section, use specific statements over general ones. Provide explicit descriptions, grounded in reliable sources, about when, where, or how an event occurred. Instead of saying "In April 3147, First Price Julian Davion somehow managed to increase his approval rating by 10%," say "In April 3147, First Price Julian Davion's approval rating increased by 10%, attributed to his new position on foreign policy." Instead of saying "First Price Julian Davion often discusses foreign policy in his speeches," say "First Price Julian Davion discussed foreign policy during his election campaign and later in his victory speech at the palace on New Avalon"

Survived by

Words to watch: is/was survived by, [Name]'s survivors include,  ...

Avoid phrasing like "Smith died in 1982, survived by her husband Jack and two sons." This information can be more comprehensive and dispersed throughout the article. The "survived by" format is common in obituaries and legal notices but is relevant mainly at the time of death. An encyclopedia article covers the subject's entire life, so details about family members can be presented in an infobox or relevant sections. Readers can generally infer which family members outlived the subject, so it's not necessary to highlight explicitly, unless in unusual situations (such as children predeceasing their parents or inheritance disputes).

Neologisms and new compounds

Neologisms are newly coined expressions, often specific to certain groups or professions, not found in general-interest dictionaries. It's generally best to avoid them as their meanings can be unstable and many don't endure. If using a neologism is necessary for recent developments, ensure its meaning is backed by reliable sources.

Creating new compounds by adding common prefixes or suffixes like pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like can be concise. However, ensure these terms aren't misleading or offensive and don't give undue weight to a perspective.

For additional guidance on -ist/-ism terms, see § Contentious labels, above.

Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities

BTW is not censored, and the inclusion of material that might offend is compatible with its purpose as an encyclopedia. Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source. However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves an article topic.