Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:02, 13 February 2022

Shortcuts

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.

Copied Wikipedia:Words to avoid (history) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff)
Copied Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (history) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff)
Copied Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words (history) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff)
Copied Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms (history) → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) (diff)

See also related discussions and archives:

Addition to Note C suggestion

I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed. Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out. 5Q5|^✉

Contradiction?

"Wikipedia is not censored, and the inclusion of material that might offend is part of 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."

Doesn't this just contradict itself in the last sentence? It probably doesn't, but it does not come off clear at all to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the whole is saying "don't include offensive/vulgar words in mainspace Wikitext, unless they are part of a quote which is relevant to the topic. Any use outside quotes, except for articles specifically about those words, is not permitted." --Masem (t) 16:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No. Material that might offend some people is not the same as obscenities. Discussing Biblical interpretation can be offensive to fundamentalists, but need not contain foul language, likewise a biography might contain details of criminal behaviour which are offensive to the family. However the article on the word fuck of necessity does contain obscenities but does not seek in any way to offend peoples beliefs. What the paragraph you quote is saying is that WP will not be constrained by the fact that some people do not want certain subjects discussed, its function is to publish reliable facts. However foul language is not encyclopedic except where it is essential to the article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, don't write "Napoleon finally fucked up and was exiled to the remote island of St. Helena." Largoplazo (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for clearing that up! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "anti-trans" equivalent to "transphobic"?

Does "anti-trans" come under WP:LABEL the same way "transphobic" does?

~~I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of editors who are not involved in the topic area.~~ Crossroads ^-talk- 06:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Struck since that part went out the window ages go. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell "anti-trans" is used interchangably with "transphobic" (example), so I'd say it follows the same guideline. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is some irony implicit in citing that CBC example in this context, since following the CBC usage, neither transphobic nor anti-trans would be a value-laden LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most WTW are commonly used in the media, despite (in this case) being value-laden. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, simply because an RS uses a label word doesn't eliminate it as a label word, we just have a good source for attribution. --Masem (t) 15:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, but what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same perspective as Slatersteven on this one. Crossroads please provide some sources where it is used, as well as articles so that the discussion can be of higher quality. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of there being sources about the label in and of itself. I don't think such were required when listing the others as value-laden. But Jochem van Hees linked to one example of it being used. In my experience other usages of it are much the same. If I have time I may look for more sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a very important distinction to be made here between value-laden labels like perversion, terrorist, racist, cult, versus factual labels which our societal norms cause people read a value into. The words that this guideline is meant to discourage are value-laden ones - i.e. those which contain a value judgement within them. However, the descriptor anti-trans simply describes a general set of beliefs and positions, just the way anti-communist or conservative does. It makes no claim about the motivations or value of the described entity.

In fact, I recall an editor appealing to this same sort of argument on the article on the book Irreversible Damage (I don't recall if it was someone involved in this discussion or not). In that article, we note that the publisher, Regnery Publishing, is politically conservative. The editor argued that it was inappropriate to describe Regnery as conservative because it was a value-laden label intended to degrade the book.

Assuming good faith, it's encouraging from a community point of view that many editors here see anti-trans as inherently a negative descriptor. But that is merely because these editors personally consider anti-trans legislation/ideology/etc. to be distasteful (i.e. they ascribe transphobia to anti-trans activists). Just like conservative, anti-trans is regularly used in sociology and political science to describe a certain political group^{[1][2][3][4][5]}, specifically one which opposes trans acceptance/recognition/rights. Another example: though I imagine most Wikipedia editors consider holocaust denial distasteful, describing Carlo Mattogno as a holocaust denier in wikivoice is not inappropriate under WP:LABEL.

To those in favor of excluding the term anti-trans from wikivoice, I would be very interested to hear – how else we should describe the political movement that sociologists and political scientists call anti-trans? Srey Sros^talk 03:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: "Trans-critical". The prefix/adjective "anti-" means against (e.g. anti-abortion, anti-feminist, anti-government, anti-Semitic, anti-smoking, anti-war). Just because a person or organization is critical of gender-identity ideology does not mean that person or organization is, for example, against transgender individuals being protected against violence and discrimination based on their transgender status. Serious sociological and scientific research/studies may provoke thought, but they don't resort to incendiary terminology. Those that traffic in inflammatory terms should not be taken seriously. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strange position to take. You seem to have personally decided that anti-trans is "inflammatory", and then based on that you decide to disregard all reliable sources which use the term, because you think that [RS] that traffic in inflammatory terms should not be taken seriously. That may be your POV, but that's not how we evaluate sources on Wikipedia. You cannot disregard reliable sources because they use language that you don't like, or, for that matter, because you aren't personally convinced by them. Srey Sros^talk 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it's ironic that you invoke the "people who are critical of gender-identity ideology but who oppose violence against trans people can't possibly be anti-trans" argument, as this dogma is specifically addressed in multiple of the (peer-reviewed, academic) sources in my comment above as characteristic of the anti-trans movement.

[6] (entitled "The Growth of the Anti-Transgender Movement in the United Kingdom"): Lobby groups who campaign against trans rights are usually at pains to stress their support for trans people. One such group claims: ‘We believe “transgender” people are entitled to their own personal beliefs and should have the same human rights as anyone else’ ^{(Hey, at least the group didn't say transgender "people")}
[7]: Within the context of backlashes against feminist theory and praxis, one of the most worrying conservative narratives that feminism currently has to face is the accusation of its having developed and spread a so-called ‘gender ideology’... Accusations of gender ideology, which have spread rapidly through Latin-America and Europe are anti-feminist and anti-trans in their intentions.
[8] (section title "Trans-exclusionary politics and ‘gender ideology’"): In the UK context in which we write, a significant upsurge in public anti-trans sentiment has taken place since 2017... the campaigners themselves... have preferred to call themselves ‘gender critical’... In addition to attacking trans people’s right to access public toilets in line with their sex/gender presentation, ‘gender critical’ feminists have criticised social developments such as LGBTIQ-inclusive school education and positive media representations of trans people. Increasingly, they argue that such developments result from what they call ‘gender ideology’The language of ‘gender ideology’ originates in anti-feminist and anti-trans discourses among right-wing Christians, with the Catholic Church acting as a major nucleating agent.

You can have whatever personal definition you like of anti-trans, but unless reliable sources agree with you, that definition will not be used in Wikipedia articles. Srey Sros^talk 03:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question contains an erroneous premise - that there is a unified and coherent movement that includes everything being called "anti-trans" by some source or other. "Anti-trans" is a vague label that various sources use in various ways, sometimes describing religious conservatives, sometimes describing 'gender-critical' feminists, and sometimes describing anyone who dissents from some specific claim that the one using the term thinks is essential for trans acceptance despite being neither religious or feminist (this one is common in non-academic media). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, Crossroads: would you describe your argument here as OR, or as SYNTH? Newimpartial (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like anti-abortion or anti-war (or conservative for that matter), it's a broad label, but it's very commonly used in reliable sources (academic and otherwise) to identify a specific social/political movement. As it happens, both anti-abortion and conservative are also [used] in various ways, sometimes describing religious conservatives, sometimes describing 'gender-critical' feminists, and sometimes describing people who are neither religious [nor] feminist. Despite this, anti-abortion is widely used as a descriptor throughout Wikipedia: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15], as are anti-war and conservative. I fail to see how anti-trans is any different from those terms. Srey Sros^talk 21:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Abortion" and "war" are acts, while "trans" is a social category. People can be trans, but nobody is an abortion or a war. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be exceedingly inappropriate to exclude ~~mention~~ of a well-sourced, notable aspect of an organization or entity because you personally don't believe the movement it is said to belong to is unified enough (or that it can't possibly be because it's against what you see as social categories rather than acts). You have not presented a single source outside of your own opinion to support your argument that what scholars refer to as the anti-trans sociopolitical movement is somehow less of a movement than others which are comparable in terms of both sourcing and wording, .

You clearly have a strong personal opinion that anti-trans should not be used (at least on the article which spurred this thread), but the sourcing and basis in policy that would be required to support your position simply isn't there. Additionally, it's rather ironic to hear you say that being trans is a state of being rather than an action – I agree with you, but I think many editors and anti-trans partisans would disagree, and would see that distinction as evidence of your bias towards a "woke gender-identity ideology". Srey Sros^talk 02:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said to exclude mention of it, just that in-text attribution should be used. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have written Wikivoice mention. I've updated my original comment. Srey Sros^talk 03:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SreySros: What do you think about terms like "anti-Protestant", "anti-Catholic", and "anti-Muslim"? gnu 57 14:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of usage in reliable sources. It is not ours to decide what do and do not qualify as political movements, and it's certainly not ours to disregard or euphemize all RS references to a movement because we don't like the name that reliable sources have chosen for it.

Anti-Muslim is a good example; for instance see the lead and talk page for the organization Stop Islamization of America (possibly most notable for running these ads: [16] [17]). The sourcing behind categorizing the organization as anti-Muslim is overwhelming, and I would be surprised to see anyone here argue that it's inappropriate to denote it as such in Wikivoice. Srey Sros^talk 20:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, vegans are anti-meat in their own diets; that doesn't necessarily mean they're carnophobes. Carnophobes are scared of meat; that doesn't necessarily mean they mind others eating it. See the analogy to your question? If not: "anti-" ≠ "-phobic". --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, transphobes aren't really scared of trans people, and do mind other people being trans. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree despite how you and I might be outnumbered. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"XXXXphobe" is a handy (and somewhat negative) label, it doesn't actually have to be linguistically correct. Today "-phobe" has very little connection with φόβος, phobos, "fear". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibid my comment to Jochem van Hees. I pity those who play fast and loose with semantics. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language evolves, else we would be typing in linear A or something. Yes homophobe or Transphobe does not mean fear in the sense we usually mean it so much as they are seen as some kind of threat to "family values" or whatever.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it. Language does evolve but at a slow enough pace that all living speakers of the language can communicate. When people in their 40s or older are told "language evolves" it doesn't bode well for inter-generational communication. "-phobia" as a fear was well understood 10 certainly 20 years ago and comparing that to c. 3500 years is a tad silly. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may be true, but people who over-adapt to the language as spoken in their young adulthood can produce problems as speakers or as hearers. I remember being deeply puzzled when older adults would use "hip" as a transitive verb in the 1990s, and my parents were initially quite unable to understand "because + noun" constructions when they came into wide use after 2000. Living speakers of the language may be able to communicate, but they may also be quite able to misunderstand each other. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gk. φόβος < PIE *bʰegʷ- 'to run, flee'. The modern English suffix -phobic means 'Having an extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.' (https://www.lexico.com/definition/-phobic). Hence transphobia (Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication (3 ed.) [Latin trans ‘across, beyond’ + Greek phóbos ‘fear’] Negative attitudes towards transsexuality or transgender people. The term originated in the 1990s. cf homophobia (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095943403) Negative attitudes towards homosexual people and homosexuality which may be manifested in discrimination, hostile behaviour, or hate crimes. Tewdar (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you people say for the plural of octopus? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider the case of "homophobia" here, in that it is not fear of gay people, but fear of the identities, rights, regulations, and other changes that are used to accomodate gay people into society (. I would read "transphobia" the same way, its the fear of what society has to do to accomodate trans individuals. Anti-trans, as I read it, is actively fighting against these changes (like giving trans similar rights) There is a clear overlap between these words (like, 75% overlap of meaning) but I can see cases where they aren't the same. To this end, for BLPs who are identified as one or the other, we should use the term preferred by sources. --Masem (t) 17:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what about cases where only WP:BIASEDSOURCES use the terms? Some editors take those as justification for use of labels in wikivoice, and telling them it is clearly biased and that has to be accounted for by not using wikivoice falls on deaf ears. A source like PinkNews even has a statement at WP:RSP that it is not reliable for statements about a person's sexuality, and yet some editors treat it as reliable for statements about being "anti-trans".

It's also not always a direct BLP matter but applies to organizations, which is what inspired this discussion. Namely, here.

Even though the list isn't expected to be exhaustive, the fact that "anti-trans" is not listed and "transphobic" is seems like it sometimes works a loophole for using the former. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read LABEL to be fully included or exhaustive of label words. Editors are expected to use common sense to recognize other terms as labels to be attributed. --Masem (t) 16:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I along with many other editors have objected to your argument, Crossroads, that LABEL applies to "anti-transgender", for as long as you have been making the argument. My rationale is not that it happened to be left off the list, but that (1) there is no general principle that LABEL applies to all "anti-X" terms and (2) that there is no general principle that all terms for anti-trans activism need to be seen as "value laden", any more than all terms for, say, anti-democratic activism need to be seen as "value-laden". Some are, and some aren't. So if you want the scope of LABEL extended, again, I think an RfC would be appropriate (as suggested below).

Also, the idea that we are taking about cases where only WP:BIASEDSOURCES use the terms seems like a red herring to me, unless you want to make the argument that BIASEDSOURCES applies to, e.g., the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (outside of sports reporting, that is, where I suppose it might apply and I just wouldn't notice). Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "anti-trans" is clearly within the scope of LABEL. The term is often used, in a value-laden way, as a negative label synonymous with "transphobic." When used as a pejorative term, "anti-trans" is simply a broad brush that condemns its target as bigoted. More particularly, the term is regularly used to broadly label its target as being motivated by transphobic bigotry or hatred, a motivation which the speaker may imagine or infer. The inference can be based, for example, on the target's specific opposition or skepticism about any given transgender-affirming policy position, even where the target specifically disclaims negative motivations. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, there is a distinction. "Transphobia" refers to an attitude whereas "anti-trans" refers to actions. Of course, the two are very often comorbid as the attitude frequently leads to the actions. Nonetheless the distinction is meaningful. It is possible to imagine a person who is transphobic but who takes no anti-trans actions and it is also possible to imagine a person who takes anti-trans actions unintentionally, without transphobic intent. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the very real possibility of anti-trans actions that are undertaken cynically (catering to the prejudices of others) rather than out of any active prejudice or malice. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put it more simply, my position is that it may not be a LABEL to describe a policy as "anti-trans", but it is almost always a value-laden and pejorative LABEL to describe a person or group as "anti-trans". Lwarrenwiki (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To quarrel not with your politics but with the "almost always... pejorative" characterization: there are legions of folks who deem anti-trans to be a badge of honor, patriotism, conservatism, etc. rather than as a pejorative label. Regardless of how one feels about trans, I'd say anti-trans is as much a LABEL as pro-trans. As a reader, I want articles to gloss and cite previously published sentiments on the topic, not to evince editors' respective biases on the topic. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 07:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know of a single BLP of that sort. Where the issue comes up is where someone is described that way by some because they, say, oppose gender self-identification laws, but they will also say they are not anti-trans and they say they still support availability of medical transition, etc. These aren't trivial cases. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable to describe language commonly used in academic sources to describe the sides of an issue as WP:LABEL. If we go that route that means the guideline effectively instructs editors to substitute that for... what? The self-descriptions people use pose much more serious WP:NPOV issues. Obviously people heavily involved in a culture-war dispute are going to find any language other than their preferred self-descriptions to be POV, but that's not something we can reasonably thread our way through; all we can do is look to the best sources and reflect the language used there. The comparison (as I made on the other page) is pro-choice / pro-life vs. anti-abortion / pro-abortion. Many strident partisans in that debate will insist that the latter is a POV way to describe their views and only the former is the appropriate way to describe them, on account of not being anti- or pro-abortion in all cases, on account of some other aspect of their views being more important to them personally, and so on; but the latter is still the more neutral language, as can be seen by looking at usage among top-quality sources (especially less biased ones.) The same is broadly true here - anti-trans / pro-trans are generally the language used by top-tier sources to describe the dispute, and are therefore the most neutral terms to use. --Aquillion (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonly used in academic sources" is very difficult to define, since there are very many academic sources, and a lot of junk in low-quality journals and/or articles that other academics largely ignore. So, proportion - whether it is actually common or a tiny minority - can be an issue.

Another thing is that relative quality of sources itself is an issue. Perhaps something/a BLP is never labeled "anti-trans" in academic sources, but is by PinkNews and the like. What then? If only outlets that routinely mix fact and opinion use a term for something, it seems best avoided in that particular case at least. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any definition is going to have difficulties, but "commonly used in academic sources" is at least something solid we can dig into sources on and compare how they use the term. The current inclusion / exclusion criteria for the list seems to be based on nothing beyond editors' gut feelings and personal opinions. Examining high-quality sources to see how and if they use the terms, and removing ones that are widely used as fact in the article or authorial voice in high-quality non-opinion contexts, seems to me to be much better than that. Of course WP:RS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and (when talking about living individuals) WP:BLP will still apply everywhere even for words that are removed from the list, and you could still object to usage based on what you consider weak sources on those grounds; but including a word on this list asserts that it is always contentious in all contexts. If it has significant use in high quality sources that do not treat it as contentious, then that means the assertion that it is always contentious is not true, and it should not be listed here, nor treated as automatically contentious in articles. --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowly speaking, I do not think that "anti-trans" and "transphobic" are equally pejorative. Groups that oppose trans rights generally have no problem saying that they are anti-trans. (This discussion I think originated in whether to describe a list of three websites as anti-trans, among which were "Transgender Trend" and "Youth Trans Critical Professionals", which as you can see both identify themselves as anti-trans in their names.) However, they often object to being called transphobic. Therefore, they're not the same thing.

Does this mean that "transphobic" falls under MOS:LABEL while "anti-trans" doesn't? I can't really say for certain, since IMO MOS:LABEL is written in a way which doesn't match actual practice in most of the articles to which it theoretically should apply. I go more into detail about this below but for now suffice to say that the answer I've gotten when I've complained about this before is that there is no canonical list of loaded terms; which terms are LABELs is not a static property of the word but depends on context. If people are going to say "MOS:LABEL doesn't apply to calling Hitler a Nazi because it's not contentious that Hitler was a Nazi" then logically, calling Youth Trans Critical Professionals anti-trans is not a LABEL either; it can't be contentious since it's in their name. Loki (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, you illustrate my point by saying "...which as you can see both identify themselves as anti-trans in their names", because I don't see that, and neither do you. In their names, what we see is "trend" and "trans critical", and you made an inference from the words in their self-identification. "Anti-transgender" was not how they identified themselves. To infer "anti-trans" from the words "trans critical" is WP:SYNTH. And I'm not saying you are wrong in your WP:SYNTH, because you may in fact be right—but even assuming you are right, it's still WP:SYNTH. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish editors would stop invoking WP:SYNTH where it does not apply. If someone, somewhere off-wiki, has said that "trans critical" is a synonym for "anti-trans" (I am confident that there are pretty good sources out there, but in this instance a random tweet would do), then it cannot be SYNTH to make a statement as Loki has done. It may or may not be a correct conclusion, but it cannot be SYNTH - please see WP:NOTOR. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I accept that different people may have different sensitivity to dog whistle phrases, depending on how familiar they are with far-right lingo. What some might be obvious to some people may need to be explained to others. For example, I can see why the "Trend" in "Transgender Trend" might need explaining so some people. It is anti-trans but it is not obvious to everybody until it is explained what the completely bogus "trend"/"transtrender" narrative it is invoking actually is. However, I must say that this understanding runs out at "Youth Trans Critical Professionals". That is much more of a foghorn than an dog whistle. We are not obliged to pretend that we can't hear it. There is no WP:SYNTH issue in pointing out that everybody can hear it and that reliable sources have noted it. It is obviously intended to be read and understood as explicitly anti-trans. If anybody can genuinely bring themselves to doubt this then just swap out "Trans" for some other minority and see how you feel about it. Imagine that there was an organisation calling itself, say, "Jew Critical Professionals"? Can anybody imagine arguing that wasn't obviously antisemitic on its face? Of course not. To infer "anti-trans" from the words "trans critical" is not WP:SYNTH. It is basic literacy. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A caution, though, is we really shouldn't be relying on a single source, even if it was BBC or NYTimes, to take on context and meaning to newfound controversial words, in alignment with WP:NEO. We also want more than a burst of coverage from multiple sources that disappears after a few days. If you can show such equivalence over multiple sources and months, then yes we probably should adapt that meaning.--Masem (t) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTOR is an essay page. WP:NOR is about ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist, so no, random tweets do not satisfy that. If they did, pretty much nothing would be OR since some rando somewhere will be saying pretty much anything. NOR also puts the burden on the person making a claim to demonstrate they are not adding OR by citing RS that support it - so the answer to a claim that something is OR should be to back it up with sources, not go 'nuh-uh, OR is only if no sources exist anywhere', thus reversing the burden of proof and asking someone to prove a negative. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads: (1) NOTOR is an explanatory note, not an essay - I know you get those two classes of page confused, but they are not the same.

Likewise (2) SYNTH is not a synonym for OR, it is a subset of OR - not all OR is SYNTH (I know you have previously been confused about this also).

And (3) if the statement "trans critical" is a synonym for "anti-trans" has not mean made in a reliable source (but I believe it has), it would be OR but not SYNTH.

Capisce? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, please assume good faith. I don't see evidence that would justify a claim that an editor confuses pages even if the confused the two types in this specific instance (especially since WP:NOTOR starts with, "This essay describes..."). Springee (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have at hand the instance, clear in my memory, where Crossroads previously confused an explanatory note with an essay. But an instance where I corrected him about his extensive (non-policy-based) usage of SYNTH is seen here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism informs us that terms like "trans critical" or "gender critical" are plainly anti-trans terminology and clearly not synth, ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it there and I missed it? Where in that section appears text that confirms ""trans critical" or "gender critical" are plainly anti-trans terminology". What is found within the sources cited that precisely equate "trans critical" and "gender critical" with anti-trans? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Context and way forward?

"Transphobic" was added to the list in LABEL in mid-2019 following a discussion (not an RfC) in which six editors participated. The consensus at the time seems to have been based on the specific terms under discussion being "value-laden", and not on the nature of the claims underlying the use of the terms. Subsequent, much more widely-participated discussions (such as this RfC) have not resulted in consensus that LABEL applies to "anti-trans" or the like. I suspect an RfC with an appropriately broad scope and clearly defined options (discussed in advance) would be the best way forward. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, maybe I misread the initial question. Based on your info, let me parse the question: Does "anti-trans" come under the WP:LABEL? Yes. Does "transphobic" come under the WP:LABEL? Yes. Are "ant-trans" and "transphobic" synonymous? If so, I've been misled all of my adult life, or maybe I just need to improve my English semantic skills. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, why did you link to the 2019 MOS discussion before it was completed? You said only 6 editors participated (all supported in your link). But if you went into the talk page archives you would get this [18]. It looks more like 11 editors participated (plus one who closed) it. It looked like most/all editors felt the labels were value laden and thus the rule would apply. The editor who seemed to object most to the actual change to the MOS did so on the grounds of explicit vs implicit. They argued we need to be careful about editors reading the list as an explicit list vs examples of the real intent of the rule (ie any value laded label). This was noted by the discussion closer. While I understand the inconsistency point you are trying to make, please be more careful about mispresenting one side of your argument. Springee (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the same version of the discussion linked in the edit summary when the change was made to the guideline text. At that time it was six editors, and it may have been 11 editors - with one dissenter- by the time of the close. But, unless the edit summary of the editor changing the guideline was in error, the change was not based on the close, and my comment here (that the discussion involved much less discussion than others relates to the term "anti-trans") isn't affected by the accuracy of the link I found in that edit summary. Newimpartial (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have made that clear at the time. Your edit at the top of the section leaves people assuming only 6 editors were involved (with no comment on the level of support). Also, when you say 6 editors participated it reads as the full discussion was only 6 editors, not that only 6 at the time of the edit plus another 5 after the edit and all editors considered the terms value laden but not all wanted the edit. To a reader who doesn't investigate further you have significantly downplayed the magnitude of the discussion. :Springee (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the other discussion I linked above on "anti-trans" (and still other, related discussions) the WT:WTW discussion received scant participation, whether or not I inadvertently downplayed it. I don't think 6 editors vs. 11 really factors into that. Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors weighed in at the other discussion? I counted about 17 !votes (it's a discussion with a lot of back and forth, my count was quick and would miss non-!voters.). So we are talking about ~17, about evenly mixed on a tangential topic vs 11 who seem unanimous that the terms would qualify per WP:LABEL even if they don't agree they should be added as examples. I wouldn't agree that we have a case of scant vs well attended discussions. I wouldn't agree that the article level RfC negates the MOS discussion. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been two years, and whether it's 6 or 11 participation is low compared to most RFCs on the topic, it wouldn't hurt to run another RFC. We could bundle the two words together, perhaps, if there's going to be an RFC on this. I haven't investigated transphobic the way I did anti-trans (for the other discussion), but my position is still that words that are commonly used in academia in a context that treats them as neutral (ie. unattributed and as if they are dry, uncontroversial descriptors) cannot reasonably be said to introduce bias and therefore cannot reasonably be categorized as WP:WTW... and I think this is a more useful standard than "well, I feel like it is a WTW", which I feel has sometimes slipped into discussions about this guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that if an academic uses the term it can't be value laden? Would that apply to academics who are studying racism/racists? Springee (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which it is used matters; if they treat it cautiously then we should reflect that caution. But yes, I would apply it to everything - my feeling is that we should try to use academic language for controversial or highly emotive issues, and that the best way to do that is to look at the way language is actually used in those sources. Otherwise we risk turning MOS:WTW into an unwieldy ball of red tape based on what editors personally find objectionable, which is unworkable (especially because in some contexts - especially the gender disputes that sparked this discussion - there is no language that partisans on all sides would consider neutral.) We should treat WTW the way we treat anything else and base it on the best available sources, rather than editors' personal opinions about language they feel is a value judgment vs. a way to dryly summarize facts. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just status quo then? I mean we have academic sources that would say things like a particular person was a terrorist. We might agree that the academic source was sufficient to justify using the term terrorist in a Wikipedia article but that doesn't mean it's not a value laden term. LABEL doesn't say we can't use such terms only that they should be used sparingly etc. Springee (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with both you and Aquillion, I think. LokiTheLiar, The Four Deuces, and North8000 have made similar arguments below, and I think we're all getting at the same thing here. It seems that standard practice on WP is (and should be) to use what some editors might consider value-laden terms if the sourcing is strong enough (for example, if the term is used dryly in highly reliable academic sources), and to interpret this guideline as advising us to use these terms sparingly and with caution.

Although the lead of the guideline says ...certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias, the text of WP:LABEL is more restrictive: [LABELs] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. This leaves no avenue for using the terms in Wikivoice, which to me is clearly contrary to standard and advisable practice (several examples of this have been furnished on this talk page – Adolf Hitler, Richard Spencer, Baked Alaska, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, 9/11 truth movement etc.). I would support modifying the text of WP:LABEL as follows:

This would codify the already common practice of using labels when uncontroversial or very well-sourced, while still keeping a guideline basis for using caution, especially when the labels are only present in few/unreliable sources. Right now, the text of WP:LABEL has the guideline functioning as a global Wikivoice blacklist; claiming a word is value-laden allows an editor to try to exclude practically any word from Wikivoice, regardless of how strong or unanimous the sourcing is and overriding any article-level consensus. It seems ridiculous to me that the only policy justification for calling Goebbels a Nazi is WP:IAR. Srey Sros^talk 03:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading this discussion for the last few days, and I would be in favour of this proposal by SreySros. It would resolve these sort of issues across multiple topic areas, and not just gender and sexuality. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be in favor of this proposal. I think this small change would be a significant improvement from the status quo I've complained about multiple times, including below. Loki (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The former ("use") is a straightforward instruction for all editors to follow. The latter ("consider using") is a choice left up to individual editors. As has happened time and again in many discussions, one editor's interpretation is challenged by another editor's interpretation, and then discussions disintegrate from this starting point into argumentative walls of text. That will be the result of having value-laden label decisions left up to individual editors (which are nothing more than individual opinions, which are plainly and simply POVs). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is already the case that the decision of whether to use a WP:LABEL is up to individual editors; this is part of the WP:MOS, and therefore is merely a guideline, not policy. See WP:GUIDELINES and in particular Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. If the current wording misled you into believing that it is a policy that must be followed everywhere by all editors then that is an argument for rewording it. (I have generally noticed editors swinging around MOS:LABEL as if it had substantially more force than it does.) In particular a key point is that when WP:V / WP:NPOV come into conflict, the latter always take precedence. (This is part of the reason MOS:LABEL is written in a way intended to minimize such conflicts, since as a guideline cannot discourage editors from accurately reflecting the sources, which is a core policy requirement.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary, the problem with "use in-text attribution" here is that we're talking about terms that are "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". In-text attribution is meant to be for things that are not "widely used". Otherwise, proper in-text attribution looks a lot like "He has been called a climate denialist by Alice, Bob, Chris, Dan, Erin, Frank, Grace, Heidi, Ivan, Judy, Mike, Niaj, Oscar, Pat, the 73 signatories of an open letter published in The Times, all three of his previous employers, and pretty much every reputable scientist who has ever been asked", which is a bad approach to writing articles. You want to use in-text attribution when things can realistically be attributed to an individual or a small group, e.g., "Alice Expert famously called him a nose-herb nut-hook varlet during a television interview". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the proposed change to MOS:LABEL. Any ‘value-laden’ label is contentious, and it is not for Wikipedia to decide whether the label is suitable. Attribution should always be used. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose it too, as in 2019 discussion re a similar proposal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose it. It's an invitation to endless wrangling and a red carpet to POV pushing. It leaves us wide open to people cherry-picking a few obscure and biased sources that use a term, calling that "widely used", and demanding we use it in wikivoice or else we're whitewashing, which is a bad enough problem as it is. SreySros seems to be under the mistaken assumption that "Nazi" is a LABEL. It isn't. It is first and foremost a clearly defined and specific term for a specific ideology. Of course we would describe Hitler, Goebbels, Spencer, etc. as Nazis. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: Do you agree that the term neo-Nazi is value-laden? If you believe that it is, but think that it's acceptable in Wikivoice because it describes a specific ideology and is regularly used in reliable sources to describe that ideology, then you seem to grasp the root of the discussion here (and your responsibility would be to show how e.g. anti-trans differs).

If you think that neo-Nazi isn't value-laden, well, you would be opposing the longstanding consensus that has been encoded in the stable version of WP:LABEL since at least 2017. Srey Sros^talk 03:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for Crossroads. SreySros, editing a posted comment to add a ping is often unsuccessful. See H:PINGFIX. Firefangledfeathers 03:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I could have sworn I checked the text of LABEL already that nothing with "Nazi" in it was there, but it does list "neo-Nazi". I think that is a reason to reconsider that specific term being listed, not how LABEL works. All labels of specific political ideologies could be said to invoke values in the listener to greater or lesser extents - conservative, socialist, etc. - but if they accurately represent non-partisan sources, then they should be used without attribution. These terms represent specific ideologies first and foremost. Normal sourcing rules are sufficient; listing here is unnecessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be damned – we seem to agree, more or less: all labels of specific political ideologies could be said to invoke values in the listener to greater or lesser extents - conservative, socialist, etc. - but if they accurately represent non-partisan sources, then they should be used without attribution. There's two discussions to be had here, then.

A) Is your and my opinion (that neo-Nazi is at least occasionally acceptable in Wikivoice) reflected in community consensus? If so, we should change MOS:LABEL to reflect that, as the text of the guideline currently prohibits Wikivoice usage of the term. I think there's a few ways of doing that.

Remove neo-Nazi from the list of examples, and assume that value-laden labels is a narrow enough category to clearly communicate to editors that labels for political ideologies/movements are not covered by the guideline. I think the fact that the label has remained in the list for so long indicates against this option.
Reword LABEL to change the category it applies to from value-laden labels to something more specific. Perhaps vague value-laden labels, like Loki suggested below, although something like conservative is arguably vague and value-laden but nonetheless acceptable in Wikivoice. I can't think of any wording that cleanly and clearly draws a line between perversion and neo-Nazi, but perhaps someone else can.
Relax the wording of the guideline, so that the guideline advises caution but doesn't outright prohibit Wikivoice usage of terms when they express the consensus of reliable sources. This is what I tried to propose above, though I'm very open to alternate formulations/wordings of this option. It passes the buck for outright screening such terms to the reliable sources, but I think this is justified. After all, I can't think of a case where a statement like John Doe is a racist is the consensus of reliable sources, but the statement Charlie Kirk is a conservative certainly is.

B) Is using the term anti-trans in Wikivoice prohibited under MOS:LABEL? Maybe we should put off answering this question until we decide what MOS:LABEL actually says, and what it should say. But the nice thing, now that at least we agree on what conditions merit Wikivoice usage of an arguably value-laden label, is that this becomes a clear-cut academic question. The question we are asking now is: "Do reliable sources indicate the existence of an anti-trans social/political movement, as they do an anti-abortion one or a conservative one?". Srey Sros^talk 00:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only option of those three that would have a chance of passing is removing neo-Nazi. Regarding "John Doe is a racist" never being the consensus of RS, while that is likely, all it takes is a few lower-tier very opinionated sources saying it to have some editors claiming that it actually is the consensus of RS, as long as there are no RS specifically saying he is not racist - and there often will not be in such cases. This results in wastes of time dealing with tendentious arguments. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This here is absolutely a problem on WP nowadays; editors find maybe 2 or 3 sources that use a label in relationship to a topic, and claim that WP:SPADE must apply and we have to say it in wikivoice as fact, which is against against UNDUE if there are dozens of other sources that don't say that. It's one thing that we can factually call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist as there's no end of sources that support that, but most cases when labels are used, they are often just a handful of sources out of the multitude covering the topic. I've talked about source surveys that should be done to consider how to apply labels (including with specific or broad-based attribution), and that really needs to be emphasized more as steps that shoudl be followed rather than editors feeling it appropriate. --Masem (t) 05:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: If you don't think "Nazi" is a WP:LABEL, then I invite you to add "Donald Trump is a Nazi" to his article and see how it goes. (While it's certainly not the *consensus* of reliable sources, I'm also certain I could find sufficient sourcing to at least mention the possibility absent WP:LABEL.) Loki (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to LokiTheLiar: I don’t want to insult your intelligence – surely you are aware that if someone says ‘Hitler was a Nazi’ they are referring to the historical Nazi party, and if they say a modern politician is a Nazi, they are making a value judgment? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind another RfC but TBH I have more significant problems with MOS:LABEL and how it's used than just the inclusion of a few words. The way MOS:LABEL is written and the way it's used in practice are very different. For some reason "conspiracy theory" is not called out as a LABEL despite it being very pejorative, and despite several articles having it in the title: see Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, moon landing conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and so on. And "pseudoscience" is explicitly protected from MOS:LABEL for some reason.

But even with those LABELs we explicitly identify as labels, we often don't adhere to the text of MOS:LABEL, which says even when labels are used to "use in-text attribution" with no listed way to use the label in Wikivoice. But we use loaded language in Wikivoice when well-justified all the time: we call Adolf Hitler a Nazi and Richard Spencer a neo-Nazi in Wikivoice, we call Jim Jones a cult leader in Wikivoice, and we call the Unabomber a terrorist in Wikivoice.

What this conflict between the guideline and practice means is that whenever anyone wants to add a LABEL in accordance with practice there is a clearly written guideline that opponents can bring up to not do that, and consequently it's very difficult to do so. But I challenge anyone to say that it would be better to avoid calling Hitler a Nazi. Loki (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nazi" is not loaded in the same way, as it is a well-defined ideology, and in the case of Hitler, he literally led the Nazi Party. Wikipedia is not consistent with the others. It describes Jim Jones' religious group (the cult in question) simply as a "new religious organization", even in that very same lead. The Islamic State article attributes the claim that it is a terrorist group (which makes it even more authoritative, IMO). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency is exactly my point. We do not have a consistent way of handling this situation, because the letter of the guideline is obviously the wrong choice in situations where the WP:LABEL is strongly sourced and a defining characteristic of the subject. I've listed several examples of articles that do not adhere to the letter of WP:LABEL, but in some cases, the article does adhere to the letter of the guideline, and it's at least my opinion that those articles are clearly worse off for it. Even you just described the group Jim Jones led as a cult. Nobody disputes that, the sourcing for it is strong, so why are we calling it a "new religious organization" on its page? Especially when we call Jim Jones himself a cult leader? Loki (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that my point was that because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, some articles can be suboptimal. And just because I personally think that Jim Jones led a cult (and that ISIS are terrorists) doesn't mean I support that term in Wikivoice. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO they are both vague negative terms. "Vague" means both uninformative and open to widespread mis-use, and "negative" means value-laden. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I would support a guideline that says "avoid vague negative terms" over what we have right now. I think that's much clearer as to what constitutes a WP:LABEL and why than the current guideline is. Loki (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or add it ("avoid vague negative terms") to what we have right now. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've written an essay to this effect. (I changed "negative" to "loaded" because strongly positive terms can also be WP:LABELs.) Loki (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Dominic, if you have been mislead about the synonymity of anti-trans and transphobic all your adult life, you cannot be very old.

I agree though that it is a label, just as racist is. That doesn't mean we cannot call someone a racist, just that it requires a good reason to do so. We can say for example that Trump appealed to racists but we cannot call any of his supporters racist. The main article about al Qaeda does not call it a terrorist orgnization, but some other articles may. It depends on context. "George W. Bush waged a war on the terrorist organization, al Qaeda" for example seems fine.

Guidelines are what we should normally do, not what we have to do. Exceptions may apply, but they have to be justified.

TFD (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-related subjects have become A-bombs and the tendency to include "anti-trans" and "anti-transgender" labels because one or the other is used in one or two sources (even if there are more sources that don't) is becoming the norm. I don't think Wikipedia articles should use a label to, for example, describe and portray an organization as "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" unless the preponderance of reliable sources that have published articles/studies about the organization are consistent in using "anti-trans" or "anti-transgender" to define it. But this begs the question: what are considered acceptable reliable sources for supporting the labeling of the organization? An article in an academic journal and an investigative report in, for example, The New York Times, can be considered reliable sources. But what about an opinion published in niche media — if an opinion contains a statement that can be considered slanderous, should Wikipedia reinforce the smear by republishing it in its article? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source where the use of the term anti-transgender would be appropriate. People who commit crimes against people because they are transgendered and anti-transgender. People who do not think that they should compete in sports are not necessarily anti-transgender. TFD (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. If a source (such as Statista) states "In 2020, there were 52 victims of intimidation hate crimes motivated by anti-transgender beliefs in the United States. A further 76 people were the victims of anti-transgender simple assault in that year.", then this source can be used as a cited reference about "anti-trans/anti-transgender" hate crimes against transgender individuals. But if it doesn't state that "organization XYZ" is "anti-trans/anti-transgender", you cannot use it as a source that defines "organization XYZ" as such. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So do you agree that the use of "anti-transgender" in article space should depend on what what sources actually support and the context of the intended use, rather than an outright prohibition of the term? Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy I will not ignore that you asked me a question. However, since you have a history of trying to dominate discussions and creating walls of text (the "RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead" in the J.K. Rowling talk page is an example), I shall not be complicit in feeding your habit. You can use your imagination about what I may or not have answered. Have a nice day! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, regarding trans women in sports, there absolutely are people who consider opposition to trans women in female sports to warrant a label of "anti-trans". (Note that this is distinct from the position that trans women should not be in sports at all.) And a source like PinkNews [19] calls it an anti-trans position, and doubtless a number of editors agree and some may even try to insert this position in an article as fact. This is why these sorts of disputes are so difficult - if we all already agreed that LABELs applied only to certain extreme positions, then we would have no need of LABEL. But in all these situations, some editors are coming from a very different sociopolitical position and argue that not using a value-laden label is whitewashing, and no amount of pointing to WP:BIASEDSOURCES or anything else will dissuade them. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call failure to use an un-informative, vague negative term whitewashing, I would call it being enclyclopedic. In the example, it's quite a stretch to call people who advocate organizing sports where male biological sex confers an advantage by biological sex rather than gender identity a general "anti-trans" term, although opponents on that topic would like to do so. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying issue is that MOS:LABEL uses the flawed premise that negative labels are inherently contentious and should be avoided, which makes it prone to misuse. It really plays into the common fallacy that negative coverage violates NPOV. I've seen editors argue that although a label may be supported unanimously by reliable sources, it is still considered contentious if it's assumed the subject would prefer not to have it applied to them or if it's disputed among Wikipedia editors ("See? We're arguing about it right now, so it's clearly contentious!")

Of course these types of words should be used carefully, but the attribution requirement violates the third point of WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions". It would be best to tone down the language here and defer to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which already conveys the intended message. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LABEL is not based on terms being contentious but subjective, and that includes both negative and positive terms, contentious or not. This can be due to the subjective nature of their definition (eg what is the "alt right" expressly defined as?) or whether the term applies to a topic or no. Subjective assessments of a topic should never be in Wikivoice and should require attribution , unless they are held near universally across sources (with Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist as a prime example). Unfortunately we get cases of editors cherry picking sources to make a claim of a label term applying universally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the intended meaning, then we should replace "contentious" with "subjective" and "... 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" with "... may express contentious opinion and should use in-text attribution unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". –dlthewave ☎ 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOICE also says, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

Unfortunately, some editors seem to think that an opinion becomes a fact if enough green-listed sources at WP:RSP say it, even though some sources, like Vox, routinely mix fact and opinion. One could call it "opinion laundering". These proposed changes would make that problem worse, not better. If these "reliable" sources say it, it can't be "subjective", they'll say. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's why LABEL gives as examples racist, but not white supremacist, homophobic but not anti-gay, transphobic but not anti-trans. The former are almost always expressions of moral judgment, and would remain so even in situations where that moral judgment was universally shared. The latter terms are often contentious in their application, but sometimes are appropriate neutral factual descriptions. Expanding LABEL to cover the latter terms would result in factual statements requiring in-text attribution as if they were opinion, like "The pamphlets advocating criminalization of sex between men were distributed by Doe, an activist described in several media outlets as anti-gay." (Neo-Nazi always seemed out of place to me in the LABEL list. There are literal neo-Nazis who should be described as such.)--Trystan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the assertion above that LABEL is about "subjective" terms. LABEL is about contentious ("likely to cause people to argue or disagree") terms. It might be worth saying that the contention ought to be between sources, rather than individual editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different sources use different objective senses of the words, under which their usage is correct and others' wrong, allowing a game of source shopping so as to push "anti-X" or exclude it. If X is a category of people (gay, trans, Semitic) the contentiousness includes the choice of definition as well as the subjective question of whether there is antagonism to X people rather than opposition to a political stance that is described as pro X or X civil rights. As an example, the Anita Bryant article describes her as "anti-gay-rights", which is quite a bit better than language like "anti-gay activist" (speaker, celebrity, etc) that might be found in many sources, because it is less ambiguous about what she fought against, without taking a position on what she thought about gays-as-people. Anti-trans is considerably less precise than anti-gay and is used in cases where there are not even specific legal questions in dispute, but vocabulary and unexpressed opinions imputed by others. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely confused how anti-gay rights and anti-gay activist are not the same thing. I also am confused as to how anti-trans is less precise than anti-gay. I'd appreciate some clarification on that, Sesquivalent. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I am going to add an RfC tag to the discussion above regarding whether anti-trans merits inclusion in MOS:LABEL the same way transphobic does. I am seeing many of the same editors I always see in contentious gender/trans-related articles, and suspect that previous animosity between editors, POV, and local consensus is negatively affecting both the quality of the discussion and the result of it. Other editors are free to respond below before I do so, and I will wait 48 hours to add the tag. I don't really plan on contributing to the discussion, as my perspective has already been raised by Srey Sros and this topic area is quite toxic. I am unfamiliar if changes have actually been implemented to the wording of MOS:LABEL as proposed above, but encourage editors to discuss that in a separate section of the talk page so that that discussion isn't as affected by the contentiousness of this thread.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is added, it would be a better look if it were added by someone else. This is because of something you have been partially blocked for previously at ANI (although that has recently expired, I believe?).

As to the merits of whether an Rfc tag should be added or not, when a discussion is free-wheeling, as this one has been so far, the lack of structure tends to attract a multiplicity of viewpoints, sometimes including closely related topics that may have a bearing on the central question, without being o/t or tangential. I.e., it becomes something of a brainstorming session. Rfc's tend to be narrowly focused and provide a limited set of options, and if it seems like that would help the discussion, then I would favor it, but it seems like there's a lot of brainstorming going on, and I kind of like the free-wheeling nature of it so far and I think it better serves the purpose. If it starts to stagnate, and/or the discussion starts to laser in on one sticking point that editors are unable to agree on, then it seems to me that that would be the point to use that as the basis for formulating an Rfc question. I'm not sure that I'm 100% confident that you should be the one to do that, currently.

Finally, if you are thinking about adding an Rfc tag because of the limited response or "same editors [you] always see", an Rfc label by itself is not what changes that, it is the application of WP:APPNOTE by editors (and the Rfcbot) that does that, and there's nothing stop you (or anyone) from adding appropriate notification to a number of WikiProjects right now to attract additional editors to this discussion, and that's what I'd recommend you do at this juncture. If that's not enough, one could notify users selected randomly from WP:FRS without too much difficulty. Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, adding an RfC tag without a new, clearly (and neutrally) formulated question would be directly counterproductive. Given the issues raised by editors so far, I would suggest something based on "should the term 'transphobic' be covered by the existing restrictions of MOS:LABEL?" and "should the term 'anti-trans' be covered by the existing restrictions of MOS:LABEL?", as two separate (parallel) questions. While some editors have questioned the suitability of the existing restrictions, but I think that has to be left to a different RfC that is deliberately made broader in scope. Newimpartial (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For any initiates or warhorses, save yourself the time and trouble of reading much of the above. Start with User:Newimpartial's immediately preceding post and carry on from there.

@The Four Deuces: If the synonymity of anti-trans and transphobic spans the adult lifetime of a very youthful person, the synonymity must be a fairly recent phenomenon. And so, this thread might not be the ideal forum to determine whether and how far that purported synonymity might apply. But, to Newimpartial's point, that's not the cogent issue here. What he Newimpartial said is the crux of the matter. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not "he" but "they", but otherwise carry on. Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, Mathglot, Crossroads I have no issues with creating a new thread with a clear, neutral question for an RfC and leaving this thread as a catch-all discussion section. But I do think that the community needs closure for this question that can serve both this particular case and instruct related discussion in the topic area. Not that I'm saying precedent is forever, but good RfC closures are in my opinion the best way to deal with contentious POV issues. I expect this discussion to be referenced in future discussions, at least in the short term, and when there are editors involved with strong POVs or that are personally affected (e.g. trans) leaving it up to editors' interpretation of as loose and/or nuanced a thread as this has been can cause problems.

A small note on the ANI block, it is in no way related to RfCs (just CIR with ANI) and expires in two weeks anyways so I don't see the point in raising the issue. I would appreciate if you took that back, Mathglot, as I see it as an unnecessary if unintentional case of poisoning the well. There's a reason why I opened this to discussion before doing anything, and that is to make sure that any action I take is both backed by policy and agreed upon as beneficial to the discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck per your request. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated Mathglot ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. I agree with Mathglot that this is not the time for an RfC on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how User:A._C._Santacruz has handled other RfCs (related discussion at Santacruz talk page), I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter. Just because an editor wants to be involved in RfC proceedings doesn't mean they should. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you opposed to an RfC being created or just me doing so, Pyxis Solitary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Mathglot. And I repeat, "...I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by this and would appreciate you rephrasing it, Pyxis Solitary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather crystal clear to understand. I've noticed in many discussions that you have a habit of asking people to explain themselves. Surely it's not difficult to comprehend (as I stated) that I agree with User:Mathglot's comment above, on 23:18, 19 January 2022; and if you cannot comprehend a simple statement such as "Based on how User:A._C._Santacruz has handled other RfCs (related discussion at Santacruz talk page), I think someone who has more experience with RfCs should be involved in this matter." ... I cannot help you. (As tempting as it will be for you to indulge, do not ask me to explain what "I cannot help you" means.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I often ask others for clarification when I ask a question and they give a nuanced response or when I don't feel I understand the full meaning to their comment. I'd appreciate if you read WP:AUTIST as that would improve our interactions, Pyxis Solitary. I understand you are strongly opposed to me starting an RfC but wanted to know if you were opposed to anyone starting an RfC on this or just me, as your previous responses seemed to be more about myself than the RfC.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that puts a lot of burden on editors, doesn't it? In any event, I am not opposed to someone else starting an RfC. I think right now you need to cool your jets and aspirations about involving yourself in RfC proceedings. An RfC is a serious matter, not just a run-of-the-mill talk page discussion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on the "burden" thing. But regarding RfCs, I believe that the terminology that Wikipedia uses in connection to or about trans issues is immensely important, so having a serious if not formal discussion (that is less prone to some of the pitfalls of local consensus) on the matter seems beneficial for our ability to cover the topic neutrally, civilly, and in an encyclopedic manner. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way ... if we hadn't had this little convo, someone here wouldn't have been possessed by a compulsion to plaster my talk page with discretionary sanctions alerts. To mimic Oprah the Great: You get a laugh! You get a laugh! You get a laugh! Everybody gets a laugh! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Solitary I fail to see the connection and additionally as far as I can recall alerting other editors of discretionary sanctions through template notices is a neutral action. "If we hadn't had this little convo" you wouldn't have known you might be dealing with an autist editor and we will now interact better (I hope) so I hope you can look at the bright side of the interaction :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

;-) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite artists, Pyxis Solitary :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any significant support in the above discussion for removing transphobic from the examples of contentious labels, so I don't understand why there would be a need to launch an RFC about it. While the previous RFC wasn't huge, it established a clear and lasting consensus. Not every RFC needs to be a 200kb battle royale. At the very least, I would suggest that any RFC brought on this question should be brought by someone who is genuinely proposing its removal. Otherwise, there is no issue to settle.

Similarly, I would strongly question whether an RFC on adding anti-trans would be productive. The above discussion is wide-ranging and often thoughtful, with a high participation rate. It's clear that some people would support adding it and others wouldn't, though I think all in that latter group would agree it is a word that requires considerable care and robust sourcing. Is an RFC likely to provide any further clarity or consensus than that?--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it above, and I don't think the two are really separable. It is inevitable that people are going to discuss its inclusion in any new RFC; and given the low participation in the original RFC, a new RFC is going to override it regardless once that starts being discussed. It would therefore be best to ask the question unambiguously to avoid any dispute over the result. Especially given how frequently that addition is cited, it ought to have a firmer consensus backing it; if you are correct that it is uncontenious then an RFC should simply reaffirm that fact. And since I think an RFC on the main topic here is unavoidable, there is little additional cost or overhead by adding it as an additional question anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there wasn't an old RfC. There was a discussion with about 14 participants that resulted in a basically a universal consensus that transphobic was a contentious label and a strong but not universal consensus that it should be added to the list as an example. The editor who objected did so on the ground that the list of words is only meant to be examples, not a binary list (on it always = bad, off always = OK). I would suggest any RfC question is arrived at by group consensus rather than who ever asks first. For example, if one just asks if "Transphobic" should be on the list then the question of how to deal with "anti-trans" goes unanswered. If the question askes if both should be on the list then you may find editors who support one but not the other and the answer is confused. Also, some editors may feel that both are subject to the restrictions of a contentious label but, like the objector from the earlier discussion, they want the list to be examples rather than prescriptive. In such a case how do you interpret the results? "No not on the list"!="not a contentious label". Springee (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there must be an RFC, I don't think one that singles out trans-related language for differential treatment would be appropriate or constructive. The 2019 ~~RFC~~ discussion considered racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic together, and if that consensus is being revisited, let's revisit the whole thing, so that the underlying principles can be considered and applied in a consistent way. Similarly, if we are considering whether anti-trans should be covered, let's also ask whether anti-gay, antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, and similar terms should also be covered.--Trystan (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other puffery words

Can a word like "beautiful" and "amazing" be added to the words to watch portion on the "puffery" section? AKK700 22:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that neither term should be used without in text attribution, e.g., "X said it was beautiful." TFD (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AKK-700, do you actually need those words to be in the list, to write a good article? We can't list every possible word, and I hope that most editors can figure out such simple examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are already more than enough sample words there to make the point. In addition, "beautiful" and "amazing" are subjective terms from the point of view of the entity that's using them. Articles are written from Wikipedia's point of view, and Wikipedia, being objective, has no opinion on whether something is beautiful or amazing. So WP:NPOV takes care of those as well. No need to mention them explicitly. Largoplazo (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close reading of LABEL

I think we need to come to an agreement about the meaning of the current words in LABEL before we try to change them. This requires setting aside any notion you have of what LABEL ought to say (save that for later) and read what it does say. So reach back to your last English literature class, because we need to do some Close reading. Here's the text:

Value-laden labels...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.

So we start with "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion". This provides a little explanation of why we're talking about this: the subject "may express contentious opinion" – notice that it "may", not that it "always does". We learn from this that the value-laden label, although always laden with values, may (or may not) express an opinion, and that if it expresses an opinion, it may (or may not) be contentious. (Conclusions: LABEL is not exclusively about opinions, and LABEL is not exclusively about contention.)

Next we get "and are best avoided". This puts a general don't-do-it on the subject, but avoidance is not the same as a ban.

The tricky bit comes next: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

What does that mean? Well, what it says is that you can do use value-laden labels, including value-laden labels that express a contentious opinion, if and only if:

the label is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, and
you use in-text attribution.

This means that if you want to write a sentence like "Peter Duesberg was the most prominent AIDS denialist to [advise] then-president Thabo Mbeki of South Africa", then you can only do that if:

the label is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, and
you use in-text attribution.

For the first point, I believe editors have agreed that this label is indeed "widely used", and not merely a couple of weak sources that someone scrounged up.

For the second point, this particular sentence does not provide in-text attribution. Should it? There are no reliable sources that say Duesberg is not an AIDS denialist. What exactly would it look like to provide in-text attribution for the label "AIDS denialist" about someone who openly claims that HIV doesn't cause AIDS?

At the top of LABEL, "denialist" is given as an example of a value-laden label. So we can't finesse this by saying that LABEL doesn't apply.
This value-laden label is widely used, so the exception applies. We should include that label.
But the way LABEL is presently written, if we include the label, then we must also provide in-text attribution.

Are we all agreed that this is what LABEL's current wording say is necessary? Does anyone think that LABEL says (NB: not "is typically interpreted as") something different? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LABEL says that in-text attribution is required whenever a "label" is used. The "case law" on this of course is quite different - people justify this in various ways, but widespread, largely undisputed characterizations are typically presented in Wikivoice (mostly in situations where attribution seems at least somewhat absurd). Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my experience, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of your September 2019 thread In-text attribution and the April 2021 thread Widely vs in text attribution. It doesn't seem to me that most participants thought there should be significant change. As for your words "We should include that label.", well, no, I don't agree that WP:LABEL says that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: I should have written that when the exception applies, we "are permitted" to use that label. It is WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE that says the most prominent AIDS denialist in the world "should" be described as such. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was basically no participation and it hadn't been announced at a noticeboard. But my main point in that older thread was that this MOS part makes suggestions that are contrary to more established policy that is already more detailed. —Paleo Neonate – 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside any notions of typical usage, I completely agree with your reading here. It seems the text of LABEL establishes a guideline which applies to value-laden labels (regardless of whether they are contentious or whether they express an opinion) and provides a decision pathway as follows:

♢ Is a value-laden descriptor widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject?

↳ If so: use in-text attribution.

↳ If not: usage [is] best avoided.

If anyone disagrees I would be very interested to hear their interpretation. Srey Sros^talk 17:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is the correct reading of what MOS:LABEL actually says. WP:INTEXT seems to be a better explanation of current practice and what people think MOS:LABEL is/should be and would be a good starting point for a rewrite. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with WhatamIdoing, SreySros, and Dlthewave's reading of the guideline. I think the critical ambiguity in LABEL’s current wording is its muddled scope. The title is "Contentious labels", but the text refers to "value-laden labels", which is quite different. A label can be value-laden or neutrally descriptive, and independently can be contentious or non-contentious in its application. All combinations of the above are possible:

value-laden, contentious: "Theresa May was a great prime minister."
value-laden, non-contentious: "Genocide is evil."
descriptive, contentious: "[Moderate social democrat] is a far-left politician."
descriptive, non-contentious: "[Member of a communist party] is a far-left politician."

Read as a whole, I think LABEL applies to 1 and 2, but not to 3 or 4. Regardless of whether they are contentious, value-laden labels should only ever be used with in-text attribution, and only if widely used in sources. That is fully consistent with WP:VOICE (i.e., avoid stating opinions as facts). However, applying the guidance in LABEL to non-value-laden descriptors doesn’t work. For those, we will use them in Wikipedia’s voice if they are generally used by reliable sources to describe a subject (i.e., avoid stating facts as opinions).

In short, the title of LABEL is not consistent with the text, and some of the examples are more descriptive than value-laden, but the body of the guideline is reasonably clear and consistent with governing policies.--Trystan (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious and value laden are being used for a mixture of "definition dependent" and "potentially involving BLP and NPOV problems". Duesberg being an AIDS denialist is not definition dependent. Describing him as a crank is value laden and BLP applies. Anita Bryant being anti-gay-rights is not definition dependent (even among those denying those are human or civil rights, i.e., "gay rights" is an accepted term for the position she opposes), calling her "anti-gay" is contentious. Sesquivalent (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that's what it says and mean and also agree with the implication that the last bit regarding in-text attribution inherently conflicts with the "widely used by reliable sources" part. If it's widely used by reliable sources, then other than attaching those references as references, any in-text attribution would be reducing the meaning and presentation of that wide use. Because you would be attributing it to a specific use in a newspaper or book or scholarly article or whatever. Which would not be properly showcasing that wide use in reliable sources. And any attempt to be vague in saying "Most sources" just runs up against WP:WEASEL problems. The in-text attribution part is very clearly what doesn't work here. Silver seren^C 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, attribution can be used to cast doubt on factual statements which is something that WP:INTEXT warns against. It would be appropriate for widely-reported opinions such as the third paragraph of Proud Boys#History and organization where we attribute "alt-right fight club", "hate group", alt lite", "overtly Islamophobic and misogynistic", "transphobic and anti-immigration" etc. –dlthewave ☎ 17:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me flip it around to present the issue that we have now, too often which is cherry picking of labels from a few sources but not reflecting a broader segment of sources available for a target. While these are used with attribution, they do not reflect the "widely used" part, but editors are often too far into trying to vilify certain people or topics to care about that and pick whatever they can find as long as it comes from at least one RS. That's definitely not what LABEL says. Labels should only be used if they are the type of thing you can't help but stumble across in doing research on a topic, and as long as they are coming from quality RSes. Otherwise, we're going out of our way to try to include said labels which is a POV problem. --Masem (t) 01:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree on the "widely used" part.

Do you agree that LABEL, as written, requires us to provide in-text attribution for all value-laden labels, even when those labels are actually, truly widely used? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... but there are ways to summarize the attribution when they are widely used. "X has been called Y by sources, including RS1, RS2, and RS3", or "X has been broadly considered a Y by the media" and using three or four of the best sources for that - even possibly as a groupped referenced leading "For example". What I know we don't want is to have to list out 20+ sources to support that type of statement, but we do want to give the impression that even though we may be only naming 3 or so, this is not the extent of those sources. --Masem (t) 02:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you write that Duesbergy "has been broadly considered an AIDS denialist by the media", someone's going to demand that you produce reliable sources that uses words like "broadly construed by the media", not merely sources that actually construe him that way. If you say "He's an AIDS denialist", they will not require you to produce sources that say that other sources say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, you are now speaking a value-ladened label in Wikivoice which is absolutely against NPOV. (There is something to say that some decades after the person has fallen out of the spotlight or has died and RECENTISM would not apply that we could be less concerned about that, but I'm assuming we're talking current coverage). There needs to be some type of wording to bring the statement out a factual claim. --Masem (t) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true. WIKIVOICE has five points. Compared to that list, this statement:

is not an opinion;
is not seriously contested (even by Duesberg and his supporters);
doesn't present this fact as if it were an opinion (on the contrary, labeling it as only what the media says could have the effect of making it sound like an opinion);
is "judgemental" only to the extent that is reasonably necessary for clarity; and
is the only viewpoint held by any reliable source (including Duesberg and his supporters, who are proud of him for denying that HIV has any connection to AIDS).

What would really violate NPOV is trying to hide the facts by dressing them up in some wishy-washy euphemism ("an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that...suggests something unpleasant", assuming that we agree that being famous for promoting a particularly deadly form of pseudoscience is considered something "unpleasant" to say about a person).

(Duesberg's been an AIDS denialist for the last 35 years, so you don't need to worry about RECENTISM in this example.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue around points #3 and #4 in general for labels. Labels are, by their nature, contentious, even if there are no reliable sources that describe the opposing view, so we should never treat labels as fact, at least in the short term. Additionally, labels are 100% judgmental more so in the current social climate and ways the media tends to report on things. --Masem (t) 04:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that labels are inherently contentious. I think we should treat some labels as facts, even in the short term. I do not agree that labels are 100% judgmental.

Maybe you're using a different definition of label than the guideline (or most dictionaries, AFAICT).

This guideline is addressing specifically "value-laden labels". The fact that there's such a thing as a "value-laden label" means that there is also such a thing as a "non-value-laden label". Labels such as student, worker, politician, musician, scholar, and parent are all useful words for labelling people, but they are not inherently value-laden. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this thread and the section above, and for what it's worth, I agree this is a huge problem with the current wording of the page. To adapt what someone said above, if the only policy currently allowing us say the Nazi Party was anti-Semitic or that the American Nazi Party are neo-Nazis is WP:IAR, this guideline has to change. I mean, strictly speaking, the WP:NPOV policy to "avoid stating facts as opinions", instead "directly stat[ing them] in Wikipedia's voice", overrules this guideline, but as SMcCandlish has said about other situations, it's better to revise guidelines to not directly contradict policies (than to leave the contradictory text and rely on everyone to continue to de facto ignore it)... -sche (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I think RECENTISM is important. When labels stand the test of time and academic rigor (as in the case of calling the Nazi Party as anti-semitic) then we shouldn't have to worry about attribution/speaking out of wikivoice. But we don't want to be throwing the same type of labels at a person or group that just has become an issue in the news. When the RECENTISM aspect goes away, I don't know, but I think it's definitely on the order of decades. --Masem (t) 04:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which would then make it impossible to label any of the fringe pseudoscience topics as pseudoscience or similar terminology, regardless of all the sources and major scientific organizations calling it such, because it would be recent. That doesn't seem like the right way to go at all, Masem. Silver seren^C 05:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe" in its recent use in Wikipedia plays the same role as "national security", a semantically flexible trump card that can be weaponized to override other principles previously regarded as constitutional foundation. The possibility that exploring and applying those other principles ends up inhibiting some of the labelling as fringe, conspiracy, and pseudo is not an argument against them. The current language is using contentious and value laden to mean some slightly different things, and I think the OP is right that this should be clarified, but by no means should that be done by working backward from some all controlling uberprinciple of having to Protect The Children from the Dread Menace. Sesquivalent (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also said "academic rigor", which is a lot faster to be shown through for topics that have objective means of evaluation, like demonstrating that something is pseudoscience. Ideological labels have less objective means to characterize and thus require time more than anything. --Masem (t) 20:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But (and this is often a sticking point) there is extensive high-quality academic sourcing discussing modern white nationalists and white supremacists, as well as holocaust denialists and climate-change denialists and so on and so forth, covering most of the labels listed on this page. Is there a point where you would concede that sufficient sourcing exists to describe currently-active real-world groups and even, sometimes, individuals using those descriptors in the article voice, without attribution? Because I feel that once that point is conceded (and such usage clearly reflects current policy and practice, the guidelines on this page notwithstanding), the current wording of WP:LABEL falls apart and definitely needs revising - at that point WP:LABEL is a mere appendage to WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and, for living people, WP:BLP) that adds little to either beyond suggesting a few words that might be considered exceptional and which therefore require strong sourcing to use in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, a lot of this needs to be common sense about how frequently and from what type of respectable sources that the label is being used. There are editors out there that want to disparage the names of BLPs and other topics, and have cherry picked labels from RSes to include in articles, and that's simply not appropriate, and that's what LABEL tells us not to do. As editors we should not be going out to say "we need to classify this topic as a (value-laden label)", and only conclude after doing research that it was near impossible to avoid that label when reading sources so it is an appropriate term to include and attribute to some degree. Otherwise, wikieditor bias is going to come into play in how that label will be introduced, and this I've seen all over the place, and both in negative and positive connotations. There's a natural tendency to want to vilify people that we think are bad, or to elevate people we think are good, but the whole point of NPOV is to write dispassionately and put those aside, and LABEL is meant to support that. So the problem with labels usually becomes that people include them without doing a survey of sources fire and then have to back up with showing that the label is widely used, rather than doing the survey of sources first to prove the label is actually justified. --Masem (t) 14:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" is not how I'm feeling about the way this section is written. Common sense says that when someone is (really, truly, actually) widely labeled as an AIDS denialist, you say that he's an AIDS denialist, in wikivoice, per WP:WIKIVOICE. You don't try to soften that by saying "Alice and Bob and Chris and some other people, who are probably all meanies, called him this value-laden derogatory label just because he actually, publicly, repeatedly, unashamedly, and self-promotionally denied the connection between HIV and AIDS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to use common sense; but that is best achieved by making the requirement for attribution a suggestion rather than a requirement, since that allows us to use common sense in individual cases. And while it is certainly true that there is a danger of people with strong feelings about a topic violating NPOV by presenting something that the sources only justify as an opinion as if it were a fact, there is equally a danger of people with strong feelings about a topic introducing their personal biases by framing a fact as a mere opinion. If high-quality sources universally describe someone as an "AIDS denialist" in their article voice, and an editor who is partial to the subject insists that WTW requires that we downgrade that to "several scholars describe them as an AIDS denialist" (or, worse, "the New York Times describes them as an AIDS denialist" when in fact the descriptor is used universally), that is also introducing bias and is something we need to constantly push back against. This is sort of bias (editors overtly trying to downplay facts they disagree with, are uncomfortable with, or which they personally doubt the sources on based on their own gut feelings rather than anything well-cited) is absolutely something I have seen all over the place myself, and it is extremely important that WTW not provide any support for that sort of WP:TEND editing. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(this is effectively to both WAID and Aquillon above) However, my experience is that when push comes to shove and an evaluation of what sourcing supposed "widely labeled" proves out that that really isn't the case and that the label is far less than widely used than postulated. Again, in the ideal setting, we'd discover what labels are widely used during the course of research and thus come to use them in that manner, but in reality, editors want labels to apply and try to use research to justify them, which is what WP should not be doing. I absolutely agree that if a RS survey shows the label in use a high percentage of the time in non-opinion articles on the topic from high quality sources, that's far far different from the case where one or two sources solely use the label. But in both, we need to have editors prove out that reasoning on the talk page to show they've done the legwork and the sourcing supports their stance, rather than the reverse to assert the label applies and make others point out the problem. --Masem (t) 23:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but in reality, editors want labels to apply and try to use research to justify them, which is what WP should not be doing Again, you are presenting this as one-sided, which is absolutely not the case - there are at least as many editors who want to downplay facts that they disagree with, even when the sourcing is overwhelming, and who will therefore continue to argue against inclusion no matter how overwhelming or widespread the sourcing is. Obviously per WP:QUO anyone who wants to make a contested change to an article must obtain consensus for it (which includes establishing consensus on talk by doing the legwork, whether that is to establish that there is widespread sourcing for a new addition or to overturn an existing implicit consensus that there is sufficient sourcing that presents longstanding text as fact), and for WP:BLPs we default to removal; but WTW must acknowledge that when there is a consensus (status-quo or otherwise) that a particular label is well-cited as a statement of fact, then it must be presented as such in the article voice, and cannot be downplayed with an attribution. Otherwise, POV pushers will constantly point to WTW to remove or downplay factual statements they disagree with, even when the citations are impeccable. Setting a one-sided standard (the way you seem to be suggesting) encourages people who want to downplay or omit facts that they disagree with to WP:STONEWALL discussions rather than do their own legwork for changes they are proposing or answer legitimate arguments for including facts that they disagree with. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aquillion: We should not write a "known wrong" rule just to rein in bad actors.

As for whether it happens: Of course it does. I have certainly seen plenty of efforts to whitewash bad behavior by claiming that "only" mainstream media believes this or that, and that anyone looking "all the relevant sources" (i.e., extremist chat forums) would discover that the label isn't "widely" used at all.

The solution to POV pushing isn't to obscure the subject by refusing to label anyone. The solution to POV pushing is to accept the mainstream viewpoint as being the mainstream viewpoint, and to accept that this will sometimes mean that we have to do some work to figure out whether a label is, in fact, as widely held as some editors claim, just like we accept that we sometimes have to do some extra work to figure out whether a label that is allegedly from a tiny minority actually is a minority viewpoint.

Also: "widely held" is not the same as "universally held", and holding a view does not mean that the exact terminology must be used in every single source. It is possible for Duesberg to be "widely held" to be an AIDS denialist even though some reliable sources don't happen to mention those exact words, or even if some reliable sources don't mention the subject at all. If he were the victim of a car wreck, one might not necessarily expect a local news report to mention his notorious pseudoscientific views in a report about the cause of last night's traffic jam. Not everything is relevant to every source's subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem and disagree with Aquillion. Consider the opposing issues here, a laxed LABEL guideline means that we have people labeled as racist, haters, etc undeservedly so per NPOV because an editor adds the label based on their POV and the ability to find at least some supporting sources. Even worse is if, due to cytogenesis a report in the "real world" follows our lead and applies that contentious label in their own report because, well there was "consensus" to do so on the worlds largest encyclopedia. So what's the harm in erring on the side of avoiding labels? We can still present the facts people used to support the label. We can describe the actions rather than the labels. Not long ago we had a discussion similar to this one and it was pointed out that the intro for Adolf Hitler makes it very clear he was racist without ever actually calling him racist. Another reason to err on the side of avoiding labels is it makes our article's more fact driven and less gossipy tabloid. People who want to say bad things about people they don't politically agree with can still do so but would, god for bid, have to do so by presenting the evidence that underlies the labels rather than the often lazily applied labels. In summary, we can get the same information across without labels that may be applied by those (writing here or in RSs) who are not careful and/or neutral in their use. Adding them when they are undeserved does cause harm, not adding them and instead adding the supporting evidence doesn't cause harm. Springee (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A different way to view this: there should be sufficient onus by editors that want to use a label without attribution by showing a source survey and getting consensus on the talk page for that -- once that's established, then 1) you have demonstrated for future editors what the sources are and why there's no need for attribution, and 2) you provide a pointer to those that want to whitewash that information or the like. But there's still should be an onus that to use such value-laden labels without attribution to prove that there's the more than sufficient amount of sourcing to back it up -- otherwise the label must be attributed at the bare minimum. But there's also factors related to RECENTISM, YESPOV and other factors to take into account. --Masem (t) 03:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, it seems like we're all in agreement on the basic principles: Labels that aren't widely used need to be attributed or left out altogether, and ones that have been shown to be widely used among reliable sources may sometimes be used in Wiki voice depending on the circumstances. However the current text of WP:LABEL requires attribution even if the label is widely used. I think the next step will be to discuss ways to rewrite the section to reflect the intended meaning. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken LABEL says this should be done for "contentious" labels. I don't think we need to use in text attribution for a label like "Senator". Springee (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Senator" wouldn't be contentious, but WP:LABEL currently requires attribution for factual descriptions like "cult", "terrorist" and "myth" even when well-supported. –dlthewave ☎ 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't necessarily factual descriptions though, or at least in the same way. Eg: "terrorist" requires that the crime be defined as "terrorism" by the government, not by the media or other agencies covering it. An alternative medicine idea should only be labeled pseudoscience once MEDRS-meeting sources call it out that way. etc. This is the area of time/academic rigor that we should absolutely be waiting to make sure exist and/or has passed before making these terms into fact, and in the interim treating them as labels with attribution. --Masem (t) 14:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. LABEL requires that a label such as terrorist be widely used by "sources". LABEL does not care whether that label is widely used by the government, in scholarly sources, or in news media.

LABEL says:

Not widely used? Then don't use that label.
Widely used? Then use (probably misleading) in-text attribution (so readers will think that it's not actually a widely used label, but instead is only used by a handful of named sources, or by vague groups like "mainstream media").

This is bad. This goes against the principles of NPOV and the rules at INTEXT.

What we should be saying is closer to:

Not widely used? Then don't use that label.
So widely used that an article fully complying with NPOV and INTEXT would use this label without in-text attribution? Then use it, with no in-text attribution.

There could be a footnote that says for borderline cases, in which the label is used very frequently but not widely, or in a situation that is relevant to the article (such as "This celebrity feud was sparked by Bob calling Alice a name"), editors can agree to use the label with in-text attribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certain terms like "terrorist" are tied to legal factors that we cannot let non-governmental sources make the determination about. Terrorist attacks are typically tried and sentenced far more aggressively than similar crimes that did not have terrorism motives, so it would be absolutely inappropriate to use non-government claims of terrorism on WP. Similarly, we should not use non-MEDRS sources that assert that certain alternative medicine is pseudoscience. (In both cases, we can use RSes that repeat statements made from appropriate sources about these terms, eg the NYTimes reporting the govt' statement that a crime was terrorism-related). But that's not the case of all labels, but a very specific subset. --Masem (t) 17:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Terrorist is not a word that's owned by the government (which government, by the way?). I can't imagine why you would even think that a press release from an elected district attorney (which is a governmental source) is better than a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal about terrorism (which is a non-governmental source). You must not have thought this idea through completely. Your story leads to acts of terrorism not being even theoretically possible until a law was created that used that word.

We absolutely should not require MEDRS's ideal to declare that an altmed product is pseudoscientific. It absolutely should be possible to describe notable subjects even if they don't get mentioned in medical school textbooks or multiple journal articles.

Your views on this subject seem to be very different from most editors'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We absolutely need to rely on the expert or authoritative sources here, otherwise, we get back to cherry picking in regards to labels that could have legal implications on BLP or related articles, or where laypeople are using science they don't understand to try to pick apart someone's research. But this again gets back to short-term reliance on mainstream media to apply labels rather than following RECENTISM and waiting for long-term, more reasoned-out sourcing that is better quality and reflective of what an encyclopedia should be using to report on these things. --Masem (t) 06:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My largest issue that is while I agree there is a point where contentious labels are used so much by reliable, high quality sources that we can use them without attribution (Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist being a good example), when that point occurs needs to be a really really high bar that should be demonstrated on talk pages first before implemented. If that bar can't be shown, or hasn't been demonstrated, then the label should be attributed, period. --Masem (t) 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to LABEL, when that bar can't be cleared, then the label shouldn't be used at all.

The problem with LABEL as written is that when that bar is cleared, no matter how amply, it says that in-text attribution is necessary. LABEL as written says that Alex Jones' status as the promoter of conspiracy theories is something that requires in-text attribution.

What you say here aligns with what everyone else is saying about LABEL needing to change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't a hard problem to overcome. Instead of using Wiki voice, "Mr Smith is a racist", we can use a general attribution, "Mr Smith is widely described as/considered to be/etc a racist". That takes it out of Wiki voice by giving a general attribution which can be supported with select references. Springee (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write that someone or something is X, you need sources that say the subject is X.

If you want to write that someone or something is widely described as X, you need sources that say the subject is widely described as X.

There are far more sources that comment on a subject's X-ness than sources that comment on what other sources say about the subject's X-ness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NPOV says to actually use wikivoice for many such statements. NPOV does not allow "Smith has been described as X" when all or nearly the sources that mention Smith's relationship to X describe him as X. Sometimes Smith really is X according to sources, and encyclopedias should have the courage to say it forthrightly when that's the case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"encyclopedias should have the courage to say it forthrightly when that's the case." This is the absolutely last thing a neutral work should be trying to do, we are meant to describe conflicts, not get involved. And that sometimes includes taking a side when one side happens to be mainstream reporting that is considered reliable in the short term but doesn't have the impact of time and disconnected reviews from other works that comes from the long term. This attitude is the central problem of wanting to vilify topics that are in the news today, when we really should be waiting to see how they are viewed decades from now before getting into that type of consideration. This is why RECENTISM is extremely central to all this discussion around labels. Once RECENTISM no longer applies, its also less likely that attribution with regards to widely-used labels also applies. --Masem (t) 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately summarizing the reliable sources is not "getting involved". If all the reliable sources say that 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks, then we aren't "getting involved" by saying that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks. We should write a neutral, NPOV-compliant statement that "The 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks" and not pretend otherwise with some weak circumlocution like "Most reliable sources say that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks (but Wikipedia is not taking sides in this legitimate debate, of course!)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if describing a person as X really is DUE, then it should be trivial to find sources directly supporting the idea of 'widely described as X'. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline isn't solely about describing people. Consider how you would apply labels to subjects like Time Cube. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Crossroads, I wonder if you could find me a source that actually says, in direct and unmistakable words, that other sources say that chemotherapy is a treatment for cancer. NB that I'm not looking for sources that define chemo; I only want to see a source that talks about other sources defining chemo that way. A medical school textbook that says something like "Chemotherapy is widely described as being a treatment for cancer" would do very nicely. Do you think you could find one? Just one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My argument doesn't apply to non-opinion labels or claims, so chemotherapy has nothing to do with it. And the Time Cube article contains no unattributed LABELs at all, and is much better for it. Imagine how ridiculous it would look if instead we described it as Time Cube is a fringe[1][2] pseudoscientific[3][4][5] and racist[6][7] conspiracy theory[2][5][8][9][10]... Some of the leads on Wikipedia right now almost look like this, even with LABEL the way it is already. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe, pseudoscientific, racist, and conspiracy theory aren't merely "opinions". When someone writes that there is a global conspiracy to prevent anyone from finding out about his ideas, that is objectively a conspiracy theory. When someone writes that racial integration destroys the races, then that is a racist statement, not merely someone's opinion or personal interpretation. There are times when interpreting actions might be a matter of opinion (Did that man avoid looking at a person of a different race because he's overtly racist, or because he hasn't had his coffee yet and doesn't want to look at anyone? Different people could form different opinions about that), but when you actually write, in plain language, that racial integration will destroy the white race, we are beyond the point of "opinions" and firmly into the territory of facts. That is a racist statement.

Also, Time Cube isn't "fringe", because that label suggests that it is on the outskirts of real science, rather than being the paranoid and grandiose thoughts of an old man with schizophrenia.

I think it would be a good idea to remember that the formula of "X is a Y-ist Z" is not the only way to label a subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with those terms is they have at least some level of subjectivity. When does a pond become a lake, when does a mound become a hill becomes a mountain. At the extremes we have no trouble defining Victoria or Superior as a lake vs a pond. At the same time a bristle when a new subdivision calls their retention pond a lake (lake front home sounds better than pond front home). Of course, a developer has an incentive to call their retention pond a lake just as someone who labels someone else a "racist" might be motivated by creating/pushing a narrative rather than just stating facts. Springee (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are borderline cases, but there are also clear-cut cases. Presumably in borderline cases, we will see sources disagreeing with each other, or only a small number of sources asserting a viewpoint. The existence of borderline cases should not blind us to the existence of the clear-cut cases. Editors should be using their best judgment to determine which is borderline and which is clear-cut (based on the sources, not their personal interpretations). They should not be saying "Well, I think racist is always a subjective opinionated label with no basis in objective facts, so every single use of this word needs to follow LABEL, even when that would contradict NPOV and INTEXT". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split

"Labels are, by their nature, contentious..." What do you consider a label? Using the definition of "a word or phrase that describes or identifies someone", applying labels is core to WP's mission of describing and identifying its subjects for the reader. Most labels are not contentious — at least not when widely supported by reliable sources (French, Catholic, gay, politician...). Some labels are value-laden, in that they inherently impart judgment, which we avoid to stay on the right side of the is–ought problem. Others will have negative connotations among large groups of people (convicted murderer, hijacker, Holocaust denier), but are at their core factual claims. All we can do is follow the sources. Editors cherry-picking to advance a certain view will always be a problem, but the solution has to be upholding WP:DUEWEIGHT and crafting an article that reflects what all the sources say collectively. If reliable sources as a whole support describing someone as an AIDS denialist, as a factual description of someone who denies that HIV causes AIDS, it is not compatible with NPOV to substitute a euphemism, impose an arbitrary years-long cooling off period, or require in-text attribution.--Trystan (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the least intrusive place to make a point I have made in other, related discussions: that a head-count of sources not using a particular term/label should never be used as evidence against the appropriateness/prevalence of that term/label, except for sources that actually use a term editorially that logically contradicts the term/label under consideration or, even better, actually disputes the term/label either editorially or through the presentation of contrary evidence. I have far too often seen editors present head counts of sources that don't use a particular term/label as though that were evidence that the application of the term/label were controversial or contested in a particular case, which is not a conclusion that can be deduced by simple absence of a term. Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose for a BLP 5 sources refer to them as "homophobic", while 50 talk about them without using any such label in their own voice. Is this a good reason to label a person? Sources that are about someone but do not use a term absolutely matter. This is the principle of WP:DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Are those 50 talking about their social or political views? Or are those 50 talking about subjects unrelated to that? Do any of those 50 claim the opposite? It's one thing to balance "He's homophobic" against "He's got a mixed track record for public support of gay rights". It's another thing to claim that "He's homophobic" is offset by "He directed a film about the Vietnam War."

How does the passage of time affect sources? Nobody was an AIDS denialist in the 1970s, because nobody knew that it existed. Would you look at sources from the 1970s and say "Look, I found 50 sources about Duesberg from before the discovery of HIV that talk about him without mentioning AIDS at all, so he's not really, truly, absolutely, 'widely' described as an AIDS denialist"? Of course not. But you could probably find 50 old sources that mention Duesberg without mentioning AIDS.

You can't decide whether a label is widely used until you look at all the facts and circumstances. This is the sort of thing that editors have to settle article by article, label by label.

As for DUE, the NPOV policy says that when a label is widely used, it should be used in wikivoice, without falsely ascribing it to only a small number of named sources. LABEL says the opposite: that when a value-laden label is used widely, it should be falsely given in-text attribution to a few representatives of that wide use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution can take the form of "widely described as", and if that is true, then it will be easy to find sources directly saying that. Anyway, let me rephrase my point: Suppose for a BLP 5 sources refer to them as "homophobic", while 50 talk about them in context of their LGBT-related views or actions, without using "homophobic" in their own voice. Contra Newimpartial, these sources choosing not to use the term do bear weight when it comes to whether we use it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all the sources addressing the subject (e.g., all sources talking about adoption rights for same-sex parents), whether by:

using the word homophobic (or very similar words, e.g., homophobia) to describe opposition to civil rights for gay couples
describing a viewpoint that matches the word homophobic but using only other words (e.g., gay-bashing, discrimination against gay people)
describing the opposite viewpoint that disagrees but using other words (e.g., supporting traditional family structures)
using the word homophobic (or very similar words) to deny that opposition to gay rights has any connection to homophobia

should be taken into account. I do not think that sources unrelated to the question of whether opposition to civil rights for gay couples is homophobic (e.g., if there were a source about how politicians voted on a particular law about adoption) should have any weight in this particular question.

I do not agree that if editors are looking at one source saying "homophobic", two sources saying "gay-bashing", and one source that says "traditional family structure", that we have to go with some sort of misplaced majority rule and use gay-bashing in the article. There are many considerations in deciding how to describe a subject, and those include not merely the raw popularity of a word in sources, but also encyclopedic tone (homophobic is more formal than gay-bashing), avoidance of euphemisms (traditional family structure is a modern euphemism for the heterosexual nuclear family; a multigenerational family is the actually-according-to-actual-historians "traditional" family structure), educational value (is homophobic too jargon-y for this part of the article?), and more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to point out that WP:INTEXT is policy, while MOS:LABEL is just a guideline, so if the two contradict then INTEXT takes precedence (and we should probably start a discussion to resolve the difference by updating the text of one or the other.) I would strongly favor tweaking WP:LABEL to tone down its insistence on in-text attribution to a suggestion, since I feel that always requiring in-text attribution, simply because a word is listed on WP:LABEL, even in situations where it is uncontentious in that specific context, plainly violates WP:NPOV's prohibition on not portraying uncontested facts as opinions. I think the underlying issue is that MOS:LABEL tries to assert that certain words are always and without exception contentious in all circumstances, which is an unworkable standard - if the sources completely unambiguously treat the use of a term listed on WP:LABEL as uncontentious in a particular context, WP:NPOV requires that we do the same and therefore that we use it in the article voice without attribution. I would suggest updating MOS:LABEL to make in-text attribution a suggestion rather than a requirement and to specifically reference WP:INTEXT as the policy that should be used to determine when it is appropriate, as well as perhaps acknowledge the WP:NPOV requirement that if something is clearly uncontested fact then it cannot be presented as opinion. The current wording of MOS:LABEL has lead to the nonsensical situation where people who want to maintain its current wording and application seem to be making the patently absurd argument that "Nazi" or "Fascist" or "anti-Semitic" are not value-laden labels because conceding otherwise would make the conflict between the current requirements of MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV irreconcilably obvious; but the basic problem doesn't go away either way. --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PGCONFLICT, which is also a policy, tells us that when advice pages conflict, the correct answer is to make them match. Otherwise, POV pushers will declare that LABEL prohibits common sense and presenting mainstream views as being the mainstream views, and we're relying on everyone to know that NPOV and INTEXT say something different and "outrank" the only guideline that says the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should probably come up with specific tweaks to the wording, since at least based on this discussion it is likely there could be sufficient consensus to turn WTW's requirement for attribution into a suggestion. I would suggest something like ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; if sources using the term are WP:BIASED or opinion-based, consider using in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT. --Aquillion (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red carpet for POV pushing. The desired label is only in opinion articles or biased sources? Well, just consider using in-text attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the consideration would have to be done according to WP:INTEXT, which is the actual policy governing when to do it; it does require in-text attribution sometimes (and would continue to do so), but only for biased statements of opinion, and it forbids or discourages them under various other circumstances. So we could import that text and say simply that ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; for biased statements of opinion, use in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT. But it is unacceptable and unworkable for WTW to set a standard that goes past WP:INTEXT; that invites people to cite WTW to justify POV-pushing in the other direction, since anyone who disagrees with a factual statement that falls under one of the words in WTW could cite it to argue that it must be attributed (and therefore framed as an opinion) with no regard for what the sources say at all. That is to say, if someone wants to push the POV that racism, white supremacy, holocaust denial and so on are not real things and are only some people's opinions and must be expressed as such on every part of Wikipedia with no regard for sourcing, they could try and use WTW to support that crusade. (They would fail because WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT are policy and trump MOS:WTW in that regard, requiring that we eg. describe Neo-Nazis, denialism or racism as such in the article voice when the source is sufficiently overwhelming to establish it as an uncontested fact -- but currently WTW does not acknowledge the relevant policies, which is a problem, and is part of the reason it has lead to interminable arguments on numerous articles, since some people do feel comfortable citing it to argue for attribution with no regard for sourcing.) At the bare minimum it needs to make it clear that in-text attribution is something that depends on the strength of the sources and whether they fall under WP:RSOPINION / WP:BIASED or not; and it should probably reference INTEXT in some form to make it clear that there are also situations where in-text attribution is inappropriate (although perhaps that is a subset of WP:WEASEL and should be covered there instead, ie. weasel wording can be used to obscure who holds a view but it can also be used to present a view that the sources treat as factual as if it is mere opinion.) But either way, even ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; if only sources using the term are WP:BIASED or opinion-based, use in-text attribution in accordance with WP:INTEXT would be a clear improvement over the current text.--Aquillion (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that something like this might work better: ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; all such uses must comply with WIKIVOICE and INTEXT".

If you wanted to be more explicit, then we could be more verbose: ...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; all such uses must comply with the WIKIVOICE section of the NPOV policy (which permits the use of value-laden labels without in-text attribution under some circumstances) and INTEXT (which explains when in-text attribution of labels to specific groups or individuals is required)"

However, I'm not sure that the verbosity is necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WhatamIdoing's question, the solution is not to hamstring WP:LABEL by allowing editors to launder opinions into facts with WP:BIASEDSOURCES contrary to WP:WIKIVOICE, but to remove terms from LABEL's example list that are not vague opinion terms. "Denialist" and "neo-Nazi" are not vague terms that vary widely in meaning based on opinion; they have well-defined meanings that academic sources and people in general would agree on. Many people would consider all sorts of well-defined terms value-laden, such as "socialist" or "conservative", but we obviously won't add them here. Consider the difference between vague opinion terms and well-defined ones:

"John Doe is a racist..." -> okay, as a reader this tells me very little as to what he actually did. Is this guy an opponent of affirmative action, did he use the N word, or is he a white supremacist? It could be anywhere on that spectrum, and at least some sources will call him a racist.
"John Doe is a neo-Nazi..." -> oh, this is immediately understandable. He supports the modern incarnation of the ideology of Nazi Germany.

Let's try another:

"Peter Duesberg is a crank..." -> okay, people have no idea what this is getting at, other than that Wikipedia editors consider his views to be wrong. Unsurprisingly, this isn't what it says.
"Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist..." -> easy to understand, he denies the existence of AIDS.

Perhaps here we are focusing too much on "values" - itself sort of vague - has obscured more important aspects, which is that terms that are vague or opinionated should not be in wikivoice. This is in line with the WP:WIKIVOICE policy, Avoid stating opinions as facts, and LABEL's own statement that Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies - note that the issue is that the term is "subjective" and "vague". Crossroads ^-talk- 07:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this is that it allows for the situation I outlined above (where someone's personal feeling that eg. "racism" or "white supremacy" or whatever are meaningless value-laden terms can trump overwhelming sources indicating otherwise in a particular context.) Whether a word is specific and factual has to be decided in individual cases based on the strength of the sources, and even when it comes to general guidelines we have to decide by looking at the sources - obviously you cannot simply say "I personally feel, in my gut, that 'racism' is vague and unhelpful", since we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. And there are, indeed, overwhelming high-quality academic sources that treat racism as a highly specific and well-defined topic to be discussed as fact and not solely opinion. Along those lines, we also have to be cautious about people trying to launder facts into opinions, especially when it comes to concepts (like racism) that are rejected entirely by many highly-opinionated culture-war groups; regardless of their feelings, WP:NPOV requires that we use terms like "white supremacism" or even, yes, racism in the article voice, without attribution, when the sources are sufficiently overwhelming and one-sided to establish it as fact in a particular context. Obviously that bar is often going to be quite high (because it can be WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and is particularly high for WP:BLPs, but WTW cannot (and does not) place it completely out of reach - it is simply not viable to require that "racism" always be attributed, without exception, every single time it appears in Wikipedia, since requiring that without regard for what the sources say is an unambiguous violation of NPOV and therefore unenforceable. If the overwhelming majority of high-quality sources unambiguously say as fact that eg. that Apartheid was racist - and they do - then we must describe it as such in the article voice (as we do, in numerous points on that article.) You can argue that any individual use of the term needs attribution based on the sourcing and so forth, but we cannot and do not universally require it in the general case; and if WTW implies that it is universally required then that is a simple error in WTW. --Aquillion (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be a problem but it's one that should be easy to overcome by adding the facts that support the label. If those facts can't be added then we shouldn't have added the label in the first place. Erring on the side of excluding the label or attributing the label does less overall harm to the IMPARTIALity of the article vs erring in the other direction. Using terms similar to yours, allowing someone's personal feelings to cherry pick sources to smear an article subject via their Wikipedia page. Springee (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, I'm afraid you are misapprehending the situation. Only a tiny, FRINGE minority of editors believe that "racism" or "white supremacy" or whatever are meaningless value-laden terms can trump overwhelming sources indicating otherwise in a particular context. The much more relevant case is anti-transgender activism, which a number of editors (including several participants in this discussion) explicitly believe to be a meaningless and/or emotive term to be excluded regardless of its prevalence in the sourcing. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were only for the neo-Nazis. Newimpartial (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial, we are having this discussion because LABEL contradicts NPOV and INTEXT. But did you mean to suggest that this might be a central subject area that prompts support for having LABEL incorrectly contradict the other policies and guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No; I think INTEXT and NPOV get it right and LABEL currently gets it wrong. My observation is an empirical one: that the anomalous language of LABEL is seldom (and almost never successfully) employed by editors to WHITEWASH racist and antisemitic labels, but is frequently deployed as an argument to remove "anti-trans" or require in-text attribution for it, even when the term is well-sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a parallel issue in both topic areas; I've mostly encountered it on the racism side. A May 2021 RfC resulted in no consensus to include RS-supported attributed labels of racism from Tucker Carlson, with several editors citing WP:LABEL. This isn't the place to rehash that discussion but it does show that LABEL has been used to exclude content. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the changes proposed here would have flipped the outcome of that RfC? Per the closing a number of policies/guidelines were cited and LABEL doesn't appear to be a critical one even though it was mentioned. Springee (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this might just be a matter of you being more familiar with discussions you frequent. WP:LABEL is absolutely cited in an effort to try and insist on attribution for things like white supremacy or racism. The implication that it could be used to insist that something like Apartheid cannot be described as racist is obviously more extreme, but our policies shouldn't be written in ways that have such nonsensical implications either way; the point is to establish that large numbers of places do exist where WP:NPOV and WP:INTEXT require that we terms on the WTW list without attribution, and that it's therefore unreasonable (in addition to being against policy) for WTW to imply that it is forbidden. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, looking at Apartheid, the word "racist" doesn't appear until about 1/3rd into the body. The intro relies on statements of fact and allows the reader to draw their own emotional conclusions. The intro is a good example of using impartial terms to describe a very racist institution. It's an example of what we should be doing instead of trying to apply the labels in question. Springee (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that racist is an "emotional conclusion". I think it is an objective, indisputable fact that an explicit, intentional, systematic separation of people according to their race is racist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it racist to oppose affirmative action? To oppose defunding the police? I don't think anyone should answer these - my point is that there is actually a significant amount of disagreement across society as to whether some things are racist (even while almost everyone would agree that, say, apartheid is racist). The same issue of heavy disagreement applies to transphobia and Islamophobia and every other accusation of bigotry. We should not be making labeling with these sorts of terms easier, as it will lead to more tendentious arguments for certain labels. Wikipedia can then be used to advance an agenda that something controversial really is racist or phobic or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how additional tendentious arguments for certain labels would be worse than the current language, that gives policy cover for tendentious arguments against the use of terms that are well-sourved and are not really controversial except for extreme sources and for certain Wikipedia editors. The current text of LABEL is easily weaponized in the service of POV whitewashing, which actually happens, in contrast to the hypothetical argument you put forward here. Well-sourced terms that are not in dispute among reliable sources should be in wikivoice per WP:INTEXT, and the current text of LABEL (which rests on a lower CONLEVEL than INTEXT) gets in the way of encyclopaedic writing. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything you claim can be turned around if we make it easier to apply contentious labels. What counts as "well sourced"? If we make it too low a single so-so source is all we need. The other extreme would be if any RS doesn't say it then we say it must be attributed. You argue this leads to POV whitewashing but why shouldn't we be worried about POV blackwashing? I would argue blackwashing is worse since it gives UNDUE weight to typically negative characterizations that can harm a BLP's reputation if someone does a quick web search and sees just the first 3 sentences of their bio (oh, he is a X-ist!). If they deserve the label then the rest of the article will make that clear with evidence. However, if the label is questionable then we are failing if we err on the side of inclusion. I've seen a number of cases where it's clear editors were trying to get a label into the lead ("far-right, alt-right, provocateur etc) even though the body of the article doesn't really support the label. Other times editors are more interested in inserting the label (source calls Ms Doe an X-ist) but aren't really interested in adding the examples where X-ism was displayed. No, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic work, not a news article, not a gossip column and certainly not a source that should be used to persuade vs inform. Springee (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I've seen a number of cases where it's clear editors were trying to get a label into the lead ("far-right, alt-right, provocateur etc) even though the body of the article doesn't really support the label - any instances where this problem actually occurs are WP:NPOV problems, not LABEL problems, and run afoul of WP:INTEXT as well. If the justification of the current text of LABEL is to provide a shortcut to avoid actual discussion arriving at policy-based consensus on POV issues based on DUE representation of quality RS - well, to me that isn't really a justification at all. Newimpartial (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have said LABEL is a tool of whitewashing but I don't see that you are addressing the reverse, where label is used to prevent blackwashing? Why is it better to allow more blackwashing vs prevent contentious labels and force people to stick with the details/actions that support the label vs the label itself? Springee (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had been sufficiently clear about this, so I'll try again: any time what you call blackwashing is an actual problem, we have NPOV and INTEXT to deal with it. LABEL isn't needed for that, and doesn't actually help. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Newimpartial. If mentioning a value-laden label isn't warranted, then its use is a violation of NPOV. It would be a violation of NPOV even if LABEL had never existed.

The problem this section is meant to address, though, is that LABEL is demanding that some widely used, fully warranted, NPOV-compliant, and (if relevant) BLP-compliant labels always have INTEXT attribution, even when NPOV and INTEXT says not to do it and even when that attribution would be misleading.

The goal here is not to change anything about when/whether you can use a label. The goal in this discussion is only to take out the incorrect advice about always providing INTEXT attribution.

So far, this discussion sounds like this:

Me: LABEL should give advice about INTEXT that matches what INTEXT says.
Two editors: People just shouldn't be using biased and opinionated labels anyway.

This sounds like a non sequitur to me.

Is the actual argument meant to be something like "LABEL should misrepresent INTEXT because that will discourage editors from using labels that I don't want them to use"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, any time you feel a label is removed via LABEL+whitewashing the facts that support the label can/should be in the article thus making the label redundant. If the content of the article isn't there then the label certainly shouldn't. As for WhatamIdoing's concern, perhaps INTEXT needs to be updated to match LABEL? If an article is well written the use of these labels really shouldn't be needed. Perhaps we can say, in "sky is blue" cases the label doesn't need attribution? Springee (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I believe that, broadly speaking, the language of INTEXT currently gets it right while LABEL gets it wrong, I don't agree with your proposal. I also dispute your apparent premise - that if the article demonstrates through sourced examples that (e.g.) a BLP subject is an anti-trans activist, that somehow it would be redundant for the article actually to say that the person is an anti-trans activist. This is precisely what I am calling whitewashing, and perhaps also illuminates why LABEL issues arise frequently in relation to the lead - in the body, it may be possible to achieve a well-sourced and clear depiction by piling on examples without using a label (though I don't accept that it is preferable, or even encyclopaedic, to do so). But this would never be possible in the lead, which may explain why some of the more eggshell-walking ("because LABEL") lead language can be so tortured and false-balance-ey. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you jump to the conclusion that such sources apply the level of scrutiny we should expect before using a contentious label in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Your position doesn't address the very real concern regarding editors searching for sources based on a few keywords, effectively having a conclusion and then trying to find the sources that support it. Again, you are concerned about whitewashing but ignore the reverse. If we have a situation that is perfectly knife edged, that is, half the sources say a comment shows racism, half the sources say it was not racist. For argument sake, I'm going to assume we have a binary choice, call it racist or apply no label. You are, in effect, saying we should err on the side of saying it was racist because we don't want to let a case where 60% say it was go without being called racist. Effectively you would prefer to accept that we might err on the side of calling a BLP subject racist out of fear that if the rules go the other way, we might not call a racist a racist (or a transphobe a transphobe). I think that is wrong and at least in consistent with the BLP ARBCOM view of avoiding harm. If the racist, transphobic, etc actions can't be adequately described then they shouldn't be labeled. We don't want whitewashing but it doesn't cause harm, blackwashing does so we should always make sure to err on the side of not applying contentious labels. If we can't reasonably describe the issue in the lead then we shouldn't apply a label in the lead. Springee (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a case where half the sources say a comment is racist and half actually say it is not, and both sets of sources are of comparable quality, then of course DUE requires a BALANCEd statement and anything we say should be given in-text attribution. Even if the sources for are clearly of higher quality than those against, some kind of attribution is required in instances where there really are two sides DUE for inclusion. And of course, BLP considerations (which are barely unaddressed by LABEL) mitigate for caution where they apply.

But what I have seen much more often than this (essentially hypothetical) case is the real (and fairly common) one where we have multiple, quality sources offering a specific characterization, no independent sources against that characterization (though perhaps a WP:MANDY denial), and a few sources that don't weigh in one way or another. I am not saying that we should go without attribution for cases that are actually perfectly knife edged - and in fact, one of the problems with the current version of LABEL is that it doesn't allow a graduated approach where uncontested labels are given without attribution and contested ones are attribured. So your statement of my position, Effectively you would prefer to accept that we might err on the side of calling a BLP subject racist out of fear that if the rules go the other way, we might not call a racist a racist, is entirely a straw man.

What I am saying is that a guideline that tells people that nobody should be characterized as a "racist" in wikivoice, regardless of the sourcing, because the word itself is too emotive (or whatever) is just wrong, unencyclopaedic and actually works against BLP, NPOV and INTEXT policies. The current text of LABEL doesn't err on the side of not applying contentious labels - if followed consistently, it would prevent the appropriate use of labels where NPOV requires that attribution not be used.

In the cases I am talking about, it is possible (even easy) to reasonably describe the issue in the lead using well-sourced characterizations in terms of racism, or antisemitism, or anti-trans activism or what have you. Actual RfCs on these issues in regard to specific articles actually examine the sourcing and come to a judgement of what NPOV requires. But LABEL is a thorn in the side of those RfCs, by giving a set of editors a pretext to opt-out of source-based discussion by arguing that term X can't be used "because LABEL". Sometimes that argument succeeds, sometimes it fails, but it always uses up valuable time and it never IMO draws any attention to the policy-based, encyclopaedic criteria on which such decisions ought to be based (primarily WP:V and NPOV, and sometimes BLP). Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are circling. You feel that subjects that rightly should be called transphobic are not and this is because LABEL offers too much protection. Of course others don't agree else their wouldn't have been a RfC. However, you don't seem to be concerned that perhaps a subject that shouldn't be called transphobic (or some other contentious label) will be if we relax the rules. Why is that not an equal problem? As I've already said, Wikipedia should always err on the side of do no harm. We see that in policies like BLPCRIME. If the label is applied the facts may not matter as the reader may take the label as gospel. However, if we err on the side of avoiding the label the reader still has the option to read more and decide for themselves. That seems more aligned with Wikipedia principles to me and, more importantly, less likely to be used to push a POV via the words we use in Wiki articles. Springee (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circling, indeed. My belief is that LABEL in its current form is being used to push a POV by whitewashing articles, and I do not believe that the possibility for unjustified labels to be included would be an equal problem without LABEL, because this is already prevented by the effective use of NPOV, WP:V and BLP policies, which cover these issues both more effectively, and with more nuance, than does the current LABEL guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, this section isn't about vagueness or opinions. It's about value-laden labels. The fundamental point behind labelling (value-laden or otherwise) is to divide people into a group. When someone gets labelled as a climate denialist, that means that they have been judged as belonging to a particular group of people. It could be a small group ("freedom fighters") or a large group ("men"), but the person is being judged as belonging to that group.

The point behind this section is to say that when the labels in question are value-laden, then we should avoid using them unless they are "widely" (not universally) used. This is the difference between "Paul Politician was a climate denialist who spent his career supporting the petroleum industry" (which we could use if sources widely use that label) and "Paul Politician spent his career supporting the petroleum industry" (which we would use if the label isn't used widely in sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a label is widely used, it is far more informative to summarize what the person actually said. For a pair of hypothetical examples:

"Paul Politician, who spent his career supporting the petroleum industry, asserted in 2020 that climate change does not exist."

This establishes beyond question that he has denied climate change. It is clear to any reader. Adding the label "climate denialist" would serve no useful purpose.

"Paul Politician, who spent his career supporting the petroleum industry, asserted in 2020 that climate change is largely caused by non-anthropogenic sources."

This establishes the person's position on the subject, which some sources (and many readers) might call denialism, and others might not. It is more information than the label would provide to the reader.

This gives the reader the significant benefit of replacing a value-laden label with a fact (e.g., a sourced quote from the subject) to which readers can apply their own values. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly how we should be handling criticism geared towards BLPs or other topics when labels can be avoided (in the situation where they are not widely used); explain what exactly the issue is, and assume the reader is smart enough to make the connection, as well as, when it can be sourced, more accurate to the person's views (which is an issue with the "anti-trans" "transphobia" section above). --Masem (t) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that you are essentially asking that editors perform WP:SYNTH using primary sources to imply that the article's subject believes something controversial. That is actually a more serious WP:BLP violation than just citing reliable sources saying what they believe. Now, for BLP specifically the standard to avoid in-text attribution is sky-high, but I would always, without exception, go with "these sources described X as a white supremacist" as opposed to trying to make the argument that X is a white supremacist implicitly ourselves in the article voice. And in cases where the sourcing is high-quality, near-universally in agreement, and where it is a major aspect of their notability, it should, yes, be used in the article voice (eg. David Duke.) Your interpretation invites editors to say basically "ignore all those sources, if you look at his source he didn't literally directly say this", which is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV - and even worse, it invites them to say "here's a pile of everything bad this person ever said, which proves they are a bad person", which is WP:SYNTH. We describe BLPs according to what the sources say (including, as WP:BLP specifically spells out, unflattering things or things that they may not want said about them). The standard for negative BLP material is simply higher-quality sourcing and more weight on it being WP:DUE, not "ignore the sources, WP:SYNTH up stuff using quotes." If someone is described as a neo-Nazi in a significant subset of sources, but not all, and that description is WP:DUE, we should describe and attribute it; if they are described as a neo-Nazi near-universally, we should state it in the article voice. But we should never be saying "here's a bunch of quotes, with no secondary interpretation or analysis, that imply that this person is / is not a neo-Nazi", that is absurd. In fact, I would actively discourage quotes in that situation (vs. paraphrasing and citing secondary sources) because the danger of WP:SYNTH or pulling quotes out of context to make someone look good or bad is so severe. Our articles, especially on such sensitive topics, need to be based on the conclusions of secondary sources and not quotefarms thrown together by editors to guide readers to an uncited conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that there's a point that when more than a sufficient portion of sources uses a label that we can use that label and without attribution, but that should be an onus on those wanting to use the label that way to show that the near universality of the label exists in sources about a topic - including past, present, and likely future ones too as to avoid a burst of coverage that changes tone later down the line. And no, avoiding labels to describe a point of view does not fall back to quote farming; we are able to summarize and paraphrase without introducing interpretation as well, though we should be using statements made in reliable sources as the origins for these statements. Most good RSes, even when they apply labels, explain why the label applies, and that "why" is what we should be using, not the label itself, otherwise we're far too much focused on the mudslinging that labels bring. --Masem (t) 13:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd want any changes to specify that the default position is to attribute, and that the onus is on those who want to leave it out, maybe that's a possible path to come to agreement. In that case, one approach might be to use the wording ...with in-text attribution if in doubt. That would address the violation of core policy in the current wording, while indicating that any uncertainty would default towards attribution. It's also the same language as is already used one paragraph below in the same context. Sunrise (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunrise, your suggestion of "...with in-text attribution if in doubt" seems reasonable to me.

Alternatively, we could just refer people to the actual NPOV policy and the actual INTEXT guideline, and tell them to follow those. (Presumably they say something about what to do for borderline or uncertain cases?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. At least on my end I would never consider a default presumption to attribute to be acceptable - again, I feel that attribution has at least as much potential to be WP:POV; making it the default would encourage NPOV violations by people who could stonewall facts in the sources. Default outcomes need to be handled extremely cautiously because they complicate consensus-building by giving some people in a dispute less of an incentive to come to the table and negotiate or to engage with the sources; the default should always be "we go with what the sources say", outside of very specific situations where there is significant risk of real-world harm. The situations where that would be the case here are already covered by WP:BLP; situations outside of that shouldn't (and realistically cannot) have a default that would potentially allow an editor to frame longstanding text and well-sourcex as mere opinion and eg. insist on extended discussions or an RFC to turn it back. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem, should I interpret your statement that "there's a point that when more than a sufficient portion of sources uses a label that we can use that label and without attribution" as you agreeing that LABEL's current requirement that in-text attribution always be used, even when we are obviously well past that point, is a problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the current wording is a problem. I consider the scenario of "no need to attribute when near-universal agreements of a label" as the exceptional case and if anything were to be written into this page, it should explain that should be when certain conditions are met. It may seem somewhat annoying to present it this way, but for novice editors we want to stress and maintain that labels should never (save for that exception) be used without attribution. I know that some are presenting that the argument should be "labels that have near-universal agreement can be presented without attribution but otherwise labels should have attribution" (that is, in conflict with LABEL) and while that means the same thing but I am afraid of how novice editors will take that. It is better to maintain the cautionary language of LABEL but establish the needed carveout. --Masem (t) 04:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LABEL doesn't admit of exceptional cases, and editors shouldn't have to invoke IAR over a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I think the current wording of LABEL should stay, but add to explain the exceptional case, rather than saying that LABEL needs to be completely rewritten. --Masem (t) 05:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just take that out of LABEL entirely, and direct people to the actual policy and the INTEXT guideline? We'd never have to worry about keeping them synchronized again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the synchronization problem, though LABLE should include language that says "should not be used without in-line attribution as outlined at INLINE". I think the question is more "when does a label (defined per LABEL) lose its subjective/contentious nature and become a reaonably objective descriptor to be stated in Wikivoice?" which is absolutely a guideline-type of consideration (there's no hard-fast rule) and should be outlined at LABEL where it makes the most sense or perhaps another guideline page "when is a label not a label". --Masem (t) 13:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

INLINE is Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates; I think you meant INTEXT, which is part of Wikipedia:Citing sources.

The problem with "should not be used without in-text attribution as outlined at INTEXT" is that INTEXT says "it should always be used for biased statements of opinion" (with a link to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). INTEXT also warns about the risk of "an inadvertent neutrality violation" by implying parity between majority and minority views, suggesting that a widely held view can be attributed to a single source, and cluttering articles "with information best left to the references".

To compare them, LABEL, as currently written, says:

Peter Duesberg has been called an AIDS denialist by Alice, Bob, Chris, Dave, and more.^[1]^[2]
Time Cube was a website that Alice, Bob, Chris, Dave, and others said espoused a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory.^[1]^[2]
JK Rowling has been called as transphobic by several trans advocates, including Alice and Bob.^[1]^[2]

but INTEXT and NPOV, as currently written, say:

Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist.^[1]^[2]
Time Cube was a website that espoused a pseudoscientific conspiracy theory.^[1]^[2]
JK Rowling has been called transphobic by several trans advocates, including Alice and Bob.^[1]^[2]

LABEL should give the same advice, leading to the same results, as the other pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly brought up Peter Duesberg so I did some close reading, of all the sentences in the article that say denier/denialist and have any cite at all ... Chigwedere et al: never says denier/denialist. Nattrass: says "group of AIDS denialists" clearly including Mr Duesberg. Cohen: never says denier/denialist, says skeptic. Kalichnan: says "denying AIDS" clearly including Mr Duesberg. Goertzel: never says denier/denialist, says dissenter and mentions conspiracy theories. Lenzer: never says denier/denialist herself, says he and others have been labeled "denialists". Sithole: never says denier/denialist. Schoofs: dead link. McGreal: says denier/denialist about Thabo Mbeki and about a group that included Peter Duesberg, says dissident. Clifton: says denial of the link between HIV/AIDS. Karon: never says denier/denialist, says skeptic, mentions flat-earthers. JournAIDS (Author Unknown): contains the phrase "AIDS denialists" and says Mr Duesberg is a prominent denialist. Durban Declaration: dunno, paywalled. Corbyn: never says denier/denialist, doesn't mention Mr Duesberg. Goldacre: never says denier/denialist, mentions dissidents. Enserink: says Mr Duesberg is a so-called "AIDS denialist". Miller: dead link. Cartwright: says Mr Duesberg denies that HIV causes AIDS. Enserink: never says denier/denialist. Summary: a small minority of the sources say denier/denialist, an even smaller minority use the phrase AIDS denier/denialist, the Peter Duesberg example isn't simply showing a failure re WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it's a failure re WP:BLP because in most sentences the contentious label is poorly sourced or unsourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the article could use some updates. Here's a few sources that might be relevant if you wanted to do that:

Mbeki was influenced by the AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg
AIDS denialists like Peter Duesberg
Peter Duesberg, a brilliant virologist, became an AIDS denialist
rogue scientists, headed by Peter Duesberg, held fast to failed theories. Although they consider themselves dissident scientists, they are actually denialists
a Presidential advisory panel, which included Duesberg and other denialists
Mbeki...assembled a "Presidential Aids Advisory Panel" of 30 people, half of whom were denialists, including Duesberg
"Duesberg, the denialists’ founding nutjob"
joined by another HIV/AIDS denialist, the granddaddy of them all actually, Peter Duesberg
At the top of a list titled "HIV/Denialist Scientists": "Peter H. Duesberg is the single most important figure in HIV/AIDS denialism...In every respect, HIV/AIDS denialism starts and ends with Peter Duesberg" (ISBN 9780387794761, p. 174)

This is not a minority viewpoint, and regardless of what's currently in the article, it can be sourced to scientific journals, popular magazines, newspapers, and books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One issue I see is that when one says that LABEL is not consistent with NPOV or INLINE because (for example) they would require attribution of calling someone an x-denialist when that is widely used in sources, is that this presumes that x-denialist is not a label. Even in that case that type of term is still a type of subjective statement, and a label. Broadly WP should never have a subjective statement in wikivoice, and always should be with attribution. BUT there are times where there is near universal agreement on a subjective term that we don't need the inline attribution, and this not only applies to labels but to other things eg "Mozart is considered one of the greatest pianists of all time." Meaning what is at issue is something more at INLINE to clarify when mass-agreement on a subjective matter is had, in how that can be said without attribution. There would still need to be some updates to align LABEL to that but thats the larger issue here. --Masem (t) 21:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly WP should never have a subjective statement in wikivoice, and always should be with attribution. I agree. But we determine what is subjective solely, and exclusively, by looking at the sources. Nothing else matters one iota. If the sources treat something as an objective statement of fact, we must do so, and it would be a WP:NPOV violation to do otherwise. We absolutely must never allow an editor to say "well, yes, the sources state this as fact, but I personally feel this kind of statement is subjective because I don't think racism / neo-Nazism / whatever is objectively definable" - that is an outright WP:TEND / WP:POV argument in which an editor is directly requesting we put their unsourced views in the article text. We must report things the way our best-available sources do, fullstop; my problem with WP:LABEL is that people have repeatedly added words to it based on their personal sentiments and without regard for any sources at all, then turned around and argued that this allows us to downplay or ignore sources that they personally disagree with - again, often without reference to any contradictory sources at all, simply based on their personal gut feeling that "these words are not objective." That is not acceptable - we follow the sources, fullstop. If you feel that something is subjective, and you want it treated as such in the article voice despite widespread sources treating it as objective, you must at a bare minimum find sources of comparable weight that treat it as subjective. Otherwise you're arguing for a violation of WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity is a function of language, not sources. Just because lots of sources use a subjective term for X does not make that an objective term, it still a subjective term, just one that is widely used, and I think we do need a mechanism that we don't have to mess too much with inline attribution when it has been shown beyond a doubt the term is widely used. But in this, we still need to keep in mind that that term is a subjective term and there are aspects about its use to be careful about.

That brings me to another point is that a focus of this discussion has been on what I've brought up before, "characterization labels" like "conspiracy theorists", "x-denier", and so on, those that directly characterize their words and actions rather than their attitudes, which are the types of labels that I think can reach the level of wide-spread usage to avoid the need for inline attribution. But unless we're talking a person long day or well beyond their retirement/out of the public spotlight, these must be taken as subjective characterizations, no matter how many RSes use the term. In a situation like this I think we can find a way to use "X is a conspiracy theorist.(2-3 high quality refs)" (note the lack of inline citations) but this 1) first needs to have consensus agreement on talk pages that the sourcing fully supports this and 2) should immediately be followed by context to support this, which stands in place of in-line attribution by providing why they are considered that way. Exactly how to do this, that's beyond the scope here, but I am in agreement there's a time and place where we should be able to do this and details need to be worked out for how to handle this, but key is that this case must be a high bar to evoke, otherwise we need to have editors default to in-line attribution.

These characterizations need to differ from more banal labels, like "evil", "racist", etc. which are far more subjective, can never be taken as fact (at least while BLP/RECENTISM is involved), and which should always be accompanied with inline attribution. But in the cases where there is widespread agreement on these labels from sources, we should be able to adapt language that again helps to make it clear this is a wide-spread opinion from the media. eg "X is broadly considsered to be racist. (3 or 4 high quality sources)" followed by context for why. There's ways to reflect capturing near-universal agreement here in as close to a matter-of-factly voice but without making a subjective term factual in wikivoice. --Masem (t) 02:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity is a function of language, not sources. No, this wrong. Per WP:YESPOV, whether a particular statement is fact or opinion, and therefore whether we should present it as objective or subjective, is based entirely on what the sources say. Even when it comes to BLPs: These characterizations need to differ from more banal labels, like "evil", "racist", etc. which are far more subjective, can never be taken as fact (at least while BLP/RECENTISM is involved), and which should always be accompanied with inline attribution - no, that is likewise flatly wrong. If high-quality sources are completely unanimous in calling something racist in the article voice, and treating it like a fact, then we must do the same, even if it would fall under BLP. This is non-negotiable, since it is a central part of NPOV. Neither does it contradict BLP, which is ultimately about following highest-quality sources and erring on the side of caution when there is doubt. Your position here seems to be "sources should never treat 'racism' as something that can be a clearly-defined fact, so if they do, we can ignore that." But that directly goes against WP:NPOV - no matter how strongly you personally feel that racism is far more subjective, it is completely inappropriate to try and impose your feelings in that regard on article content in contexts where the sources unambiguously disagree. I am fine with setting a high bar (especially for BLPs, where it is already high), but ultimately the only thing that matters when determining whether we frame something as a fact or opinion is how it is treated by the sources, which means that absolute statements like you're making here cannot be imposed. And I literally mean cannot be imposed, ie. NPOV directly instructs us on this and is not subject to consensus. Even if you write a policy that directly and unambiguously says "never call any individual's actions or statements racist in the article voice", NPOV will override that in the (rare, but far from nonexistent) situations where the sources are sufficiently high-quality, unanimous and unambiguous. Per WP:YESPOV we are strictly forbidden from treating something as subjective or as opinion when it is unambiguously treated as objective and as fact in the sources, and that cannot be changed or overruled. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in YESPOV that says that even with a near agreement of reliable sources assert a subjective statement about a topic in a factual tone, that we must accept that agreement as fact. That would be making a subjective statement into an statement of fact which we absolutely cannot do. In fact, YESPOV includes "Prefer nonjudgmental language" which says exactly not to take that factual tone in such cases. NPOV does say that we should treat that as the majority position and that unless there are reliable sources that present counterarguments to that point, shouldn't play games around false balance or equivalence. But presenting such a situation where there is near-agreement about how a topic is characterized or how a subjective term is used is far different than something that has gained objective, factual stance. In a case where there is near-universal agreement that a person is an "x-denier" as "Y is widely considered an x-denier" or "Y is an X-denier", as long as that is appropriately followed by context to explain that, falls 100% in line with NPOV, neither weakening the position of the majority position while maintaining the fact it is still something that is, implicitly, a subjective term that never should be stated factually in wiki-voice without context. (and of course, after consensus has agreed that there is sufficient universal agreement that the term can be written that way). This works for positive/praise language as well as non-controversial subjective terms too (such as "philanthropist", "savant", etc.), so its not just an issue for how we write for those treated negatively by media, but how we write period to stay neutral as an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where WP:YESPOV says that the distinction between fact and opinion is based on "what the sources say". It states, Avoid stating opinions as facts. This even goes so far as For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." And the rule to avoid stating opinions as facts is distinct from the following separate point to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. So no, an opinion does not transform into a fact simply by being stated in enough sources. Something can be not "seriously contested", yet still be opinion. I know of no source or policy that says the distinction between facts and opinions is just a matter of how widely they are held.

Just saying 'if enough sources say it, it's a fact' is also a problem because sources can be WP:BIASEDSOURCES. They may mix fact and opinion, have political or ideological biases, and so on. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't base distinctions between facts and opinions on sources, what could we base them on? Underlying your reading of LABEL seems to be the idea that the terms mentioned are always to be understood as reflecting the opinion of sources, rather than facts, but this reading is not based on WP policy. Your apparent view goes well beyond what LABEL actually says, namely, Value-laden labels - such as calling an organization a cult, (or) an individual a racist ... may express contentious opinion. The guideline does not state that value-laden terms are necessarily contentious or they they are necessarily matters of opinion, as opposed to fact. What quality sources write about "cults", for example, are typically not A.J. Ayer-style statements of personal opinion but rather (in many cases) claims based on rigorously defined concepts and documented empirical reality. The naïve epistemology that would separate "value-laden" concepts from "factual" statements is, thankfully, not assumed by WP policy, and should not be inserted as a way to overrule quality sources and "win" Talk page discussions, either. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Value laden labels are implicitly contentious by definition so there's no reason LABEL needs to spell that out. And again there is a point well beyond where BLP or RECENTISM would apply, so that we would be fine calling pre 20th century cults as such in wikivoice, for example, but not some group founded in 2021. --Masem (t) 18:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with calling a recently founded group a cult, assuming that there are high-quality sources that say so. There's no reason to obscure this for 100+ years. Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade may not be a functional behavior when dealing with a dispute, but it's perfectly good practice for encyclopedia articles. Charles Manson and Jim Jones and David Koresh founded cults, and it is not too recent for us to say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RECENTISM tells us not to. And the cases you name fall outside bound that RECENTISM would cover. (20-some years). --Masem (t) 01:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RECENTISM does not tell editors not to label these men as having founded cults. NPOV and INTEXT does not tell editors to provide in-text attribution for that label in those cases. Why should LABEL tell editors that they must do so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I mention those three because you said "we would be fine calling pre 20th century cults as such in wikivoice". Pre-20th-century means 1899 or earlier. We are obviously perfectly fine with calling late-20th-century cults as such in wikivoice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this appeal to RECENTISM is valid. We are perfectly fine with calling QAnon a cult in Wikivoice, despite it not existing prior to the first posts by Q in 2017, a mere five years ago. I'm also not seeing anything in WP:RECENTISM about a hard date for when a subject stops being recent. The closest to advice it provides for that is the WP:10YEARTEST, and that is primiarily as a corollary/supplement to WP:GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RECENTISM has to be kept in mind within context of the amount of coverage and other factors, and yes, there's no hard cutoff date where RECENTISM no longer applies. My point from above is that if a group was founded tomorrow, and the day after we had papers calling it a cult, that's probably not our place to be calling it a cult in Wiki voice, that's definitely where RECENTISM would apply. But the QAnon is a good example where there's vast amount of coverage that connect it to a cult (though a surface examination of the refs suggest a bit better preciseness is needed, as it a group compared to a cult but there's not universal agrteement that is a cult - eg a source survey should be done to verify that that is the case or not). --Masem (t) 05:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Qanon a cult in Wikivoice is a great example of RECENTISM failure, NPOV failure, NOR failure, and of course political bias to accept the statement on incredibly weak sourcing. I searched the web for "Qanon", looked at the first 10 RS, all were major media sites plus one think tank paper, and not a single one states as a fact that it's a cult. Most of the articles do not say "cult" at all, a few had comments on how it is cultlike in various ways. The sources cited for "cult" in QAnon, and for Qanon in cult, do not state that as a fact either. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

In the discussion above, there seems to be broad agreement that:

Labels that are not supported by reliable sources should not be used at all.
Labels that are widely supported as statements of fact by the majority of reliable sources should be used in wiki voice.
If reliable sources present a label as an opinion, or if there is significant disagreement among sources, then in-text attribution must be used.
The current version of WP:LABEL violates WP:INTEXT and WP:NEUTRALITY, which in some cases require labels to be presented in wiki voice.

The main points of contention seem to be where to draw the line between attribution and wiki voice, and how to determine whether a label is widely supported in a way that's not prone to editors abusing/gaming the system.

Obviously a change to MOS will require an RfC, but I'd like to discuss possible ways to word it before going that route. Here's my suggestion as a starting point:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinions and should be used with caution. Labels may only be used in Wiki voice if they are widely used as statements of fact by reliable sources. If sources present the label as an opinion, or if there is disagreement among sources, then in-text attribution must be used. However, per WP:INTEXT, unnecessary attribution can lead to a neutrality violation. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

Again, this is just a starting point, so feel free to suggest changes. –dlthewave ☎ 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is "broad agreement" about those things, so I feel free to suggest that WP:LABEL should be left alone. If there's an RfC, I suppose participants in prior related discussions should be pinged. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first one but I think #2 is a questionable summary, #3 isn't correct because in some cases like that the answer is to not use the label. #4 is not something that has consensus above, especially the part about we are "required" to use any label much less in wiki voice. No, we aren't. Springee (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, dlthewave, it's going to be a situation that those who disagree with the consensus will be against your summary and those who agree with the consensus will be fine with it. Thus litigating the discussion all over again. C'est la vie. Silver seren^C 03:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not at all see "broad agreement" with those bullet points except for the first one. The rest are too in favor of affixing labels. The whole idea of making it easier to affix controversial labels, let alone encouraging editors to do so, is a bad route to go down and will lower our quality and muddy our objective tone. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in with not seeing agreement, except for #1. However, this does not need any change here, as WP:Verifiability policy already requires that *content* that is not supported by reliable sources should not be used at all. I don't see why labels have to be called out as a special subset of content; this is already covered by policy. This just seems like WP:CREEP to me. Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with previous comments that the above "agreement" is flawed, hinging on #2 as being what is really the problematic conclusion. I fully understand the need that when a large majority of sources use a label to describe a topic that it is not efficient to use in-line attribution to ascribe that label to 10-20+ different sources, but whatever way we want to end up presenting it, it still needs to be presented as a subjective label or characterization that is the majority opinion of sources, as long as BLP and/or RECENTISM applies. --Masem (t) 13:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no way to implement this, but if 90% of sources agree with the label, it's informative and fine for Wikipedia. If only 70% agree, the it fits the common meaning of "value laden" and is something that is just a statement of somebody's opinion or a concept or neologism that they are promoting and needs in text attribution if even used. So, in "the arctic has a cold climate", "cold" is not value laden (even if someone who lives in Antarctica would disagree) . In "Chicago has a cold climate", "cold" is value laden. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, that's basically what I was trying to get across. There are times when a label can be used in Wiki voice and times when attribution is needed, and our guideline should reflect this. –dlthewave ☎ 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave, I think there is some level of broad agreement, but I don't think you've quite captured it. For example, "a majority of reliable sources" (i.e., a bare majority) is probably wrong. I think it'd be safer to say that LABELs, if used at all, should be used in compliance with NPOV and INTEXT.

Also, RFCs aren't required to change the MOS, but one might be required to convince editors that this change is needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that given some of the fundamental disagreements above an RFC is definitely going to be necessary here (especially the objections to point two, which I think is a simple restatement of WP:WIKIVOICE and therefore non-negotiable), but it's worth spending the time to make sure we have an ideal proposed rewording. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, I like it! NPOV and INTEXT are the overriding policy/guideline, and simply referencing them would be an elegant solution. –dlthewave ☎ 18:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler change that might get broader support immediately is to switch the word order in LABEL from "value-laden labels such as .... may express contentious opinion" to "(use of) labels such as ... may be value-laden and thus express (potentially) contentious opinion". This would clarify that the mere appearance of a word on the list is not the thing that is contentious but rather its application in particular cases; that the contentiousness comes from the value-ladenness (whatever the latter means); and would solve or weaken pretty much all the particular examples suggested above where use of a term on the list is not particularly value dependent. Sesquivalent (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could be a useful change. (I consider it separate from the other points, and unless someone objects to it in the next couple of days, I'd encourage you to make that change soon.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the clear statement that some terms e.g. the listed ones are value-laden becomes the unclear statement that they might be value-laden? I object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan, some of those words aren't always value-laden. Consider the word cult: it might be value-laden (e.g., Personality cult), but it might not be (e.g., Cult (religious practice), Cult following). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closer reading of "value laden"

I think the flowchart, as intended and as used in practice, is different than the reading given by the OP.

"Value laden" here refers to whether the applicability and correctness of the label are dependent on value judgements, assumptions or definitions that vary considerably among sources or (importantly) readers of the article.

"may ... contentious" here means likelihood of contention arising from that value dependence.

The running example of "AIDS denialist" applied to Duesberg is not value laden provided that it is accepted as a generally understood term of art. The phrase is not 100 percent clear as to whether it means denying AIDS entirely or the role of HIV in causing it, which the associated Wikipedia article resolves by using "HIV/AIDS denialism" as its title. If you accept that bluelinking to the article is enough to resolve the ambiguity then there is no further value (or assumption, definition, culture, language etc) dependence and the MOS:LABEL algorithm as I read it does not stop use of the phrase in Wikivoice.

On the other hand if one tried to label Duesberg with something meaning "responsible for numerous deaths of South African AIDS patients" (whether the exact phrase or a proxy like lethal counselor or angel of death) then even if all sources had such language, it would be contentious by reason of value dependence. Since Duesberg never went out and personally killed people, connecting mass death to him depends on a chain of assumptions and inferences about responsibility, agency, influence, cause and effect; no matter how much the sources may treat the full chain as obvious, a reasonable person or hypothetical reader might not, and the flowchart correctly says to use in text attribution. A wikivoice statement that "numerous sources describe him as..." might also be in the spirit of the current MOS:LABEL wording.

The discussion that ensued here strikes me as discovering an unexploited security hole and then insisting on repairs that create much larger problems. Rewriting MOS:LABEL to allow carte blanche for a consensus of sources to dictate reality where analogous chains of inferences are involved opens a can of worms. It's one thing if sources all agree Duesberg was born in a particular year and quite another if they all agree his actions led to mass death, or that Trump is a serial liar, or other such inferences. The problem is not that these descriptions are negative or necessarily wrong but that they are conclusions which import a lot of logical and conceptual baggage, which I think is what is current summarized as "value laden". Formerly it said "biased" with essentially the same intent. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is reasonable enough, but it's not what LABEL is about. The label denialist is called out in LABEL as an example of a value-laden label. The "value" it is laden with is that the view has been judged incorrect. Duesberg is not "the holder of a minority viewpoint", which carries little or no value. He is not a "dissident", which assigns some positive value to him. He is a "denialist", which indicates that his views are entirely wrong, and that he has been judged incorrect to the point of his views being irrational and suggestive of a psychological defense mechanism.

My goal is to get LABEL out of the business of saying when INTEXT attribution is appropriate. We've got a perfectly good guideline over at WP:INTEXT that says when and how to use INTEXT. It happens that what LABEL says about INTEXT does not match what INTEXT says about INTEXT. The simplest solution is for LABEL to just stop saying anything about when and how to use INTEXT, and merely to point to INTEXT as the canonical guideline on when and how to use INTEXT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LABEL, including the part about INTEXT, is a gloss on some of the instructions from NPOV, mainly the one about "avoid stating opinions as facts" that has an in text attribution directive, so the latter is not logically detachable. The problems you are claiming with "denialist", and what Aquillion is calling a utilized exploit, are based on interpreting "value laden" as (A) an intrinsic property of the words on the LABEL list, and (B) often having something to do with the term being derogatory or "judgemental" as NPOV calls it, so that people can scream about that. My analysis of what LABEL means to say indicates that (B) can be separated from INTEXT by giving it as an additional and distinct reason to avoid words on the list (basically just a pointer to the judgemental part of NPOV); and that (A) should be resolved by indicating that the concept of value laden (or whatever better term might be used in its place) here applies or fails to apply only to particular instances where such a word is used, and is not a property of the word itself. "Denialist", for example, is only used in contexts where it is said that X is a Y denialist/denier, and whether that is value laden depends on X and how well defined is the meaning of "Y denialist". This still leaves a directive to use INTEXT for what NPOV calls statements of opinion, which LABEL calls value laden, and might more accurately be described as "dependent on unstated baggage". Sesquivalent (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting MOS:LABEL to allow carte blanche for a consensus of sources to dictate reality where analogous chains of inferences are involved opens a can of worm - to be clear, we are required (not merely allowed) to follow the consensus of sources; any interpretation of MOS:WTW that would allow a clear consensus among high-quality neutral sources to be disregarded or downplayed via attribution is incorrect, and any wording that would support such an interpretation is in error, since WP:WIKIVOICE, as part of NPOV, is core policy and ultimately requires that we follow the sources. Even if an editor personally feels that what the sources say is value-laden and therefore does not reflect their personal subjective view of reality, that is not a valid policy argument that would allow us to ignore an overwhelming consensus among sources, and therefore has no weight whatsoever in discussions. The only way NPOV allows us to determine reality is by looking at the sources. And I certainly do not agree that this issue is "unexploited" - many people, in the past, have leaned on the error in this policy to falsely argue that we can attribute things that they disagree with or personally feel are value-laden without presenting any sources to support that reading and without articulating specific issues with the sources that present it as fact. That has to be clearly stopped - arguing that the sources are WP:BIASED is fine; arguing they're not strong enough is fine; showing that there are other sources of equal weight that treat something as subjective is fine (those are the sorts of arguments people should be encouraged to make!) But an argument along the lines of "this is a word on WTW and therefore I'm going to argue that it is inherently subjective and cannot be stated in the article voice regardless of what the sources say" (something that has become unfortunately common recently) directly violates WP:NPOV and is, beyond that, an unproductive way to engage in discussions, both because it has no grounding in policy and because it distracts from examining the sources that we must ultimately defer to to decide article content. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV distinguishes opinions from facts and requires they be treated differently, irrespective of the proportion of sources holding the opinion. Whether something is fact or opinion is, for most purposes, a question of fact. Whether something is objective or subjective ("an editor's ... personal subjective view of reality" as you put it) is, for most purposes, an objective question. Questions which are, in most cases, easy to answer. The supposed conflict of in text attribution with NPOV is with the instruction to state in Wikivoice things that are "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions". But the point of value laden as explicated above is that by definition a value laden assertion in that sense cannot be taken to be uncontested fact (e.g., it depends on various inferences or assumptions, as in Trump being a serial liar or Duesberg a killer by proxy), no matter how little controversy it generates in available sources. There is no NPOV problem in using attribution that describes the extent of agreement among sources. Sesquivalent (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, WP:NPOV distinguishes between "fact" and "opinion" and not between "objective" and "subjective", which would have been a false dichotomy in this context. I am disappointed to see the assertion here that facts that relate to underlying values (like, for example, historical statements that certain policy initiatives were antisemitic or white supremacist) are supposed by Sesquivalent not to be facts even when (as with much of NAZI policy, or the Jim Crow regime in the US South) their status is essentially uncontested. The idea that such uncontroversial descriptions cannot be made in wikivoice is not supported by actual NPOV policy and strikes me as simply a hangover of unacknowledged Vienna Circle metaphysics on the part of certain editors.

One key aspect that NPOV does identify, which would benefit editors if given more attention in actual discussions about article text IMO, is the injunction to prefer nonjudgemental language. I have the impression that editors frequently appeal to "opinion" or "value"-based objections to terms when their actual objection is that they find a term judgmental, regardless of how well it is sourced. This is presumably how "cult" finds itself on the list at LABEL, for example, since it does certainly not always imply an "opinion" rather than a factual claim.

If we were to be more explicit about the role of judgmental language, I hope we could have discussions that distinguish among multiple terms applied to roughly the same phenomenon and try to evaluate what is more or less judgmental in tone. For example, there might be many instances where homophobic or transphobic appear judgmental to editors in a sense in which "anti-gay" or "anti-trans" do not, in spite of denoting very similar phenomena. I'm not convinced that there are always alternative terms that can be compared in this way, and editors can reasonably differ about what terms are more or less neutral, but if we could shift the terrain to this part of NPOV it might at least allow policy-based discussion. The idea that all value-laden terms are to be avoided or attributed (and the debates I have seen about the inclusion of false or falsely in articles represent an extreme version of this, but correctly reflect that "false" is in fact a value-laden term) is a quagmire into which LABEL would lead us. And the solution cannot be only to carve out areas like pseudoscience where we require that value-laden terms be used when they are, in fact, the correct terms - MOS guidelines should reflect the reality that factual and value-laden statements routinely overlap, according to reliable sources, and get on with making an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with this. Words to "watch" are not words to avoid in all circumstances. It's often good to take care when using a term, but sometimes, the right way to represent the facts is to go ahead and use that term. XOR'easter (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really a poor poor excuse and shortcut from good encyclopedia writing as to explain why a label may apply to a person or group. That's a major issue with labels in general in that they are terms that may overly simplify complex positions, and using a label without any other context (regardless of attribution or not) is not helping the reader to understand that position. We really should be explaining that instead of someone being, for example, a climate change denier, that they have stated that humans have not contributed to climate change and that current planetary warming is part of a natural cycle. (Assuming we can source this to an RS) That gives far more information than just "climate change denier" does, and is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that we then can't also use "climate change denier" as long as that label is sufficiently used, but using that label alone without further context overly simplifies the situation. And I will say that if we're talking a case that a label like "climate change denier" is used so frequently in RSes, it is pretty much assured at least one or two of those sources are going to explain the person's position, we don't have to go looking for SPS or the like to include that. Its the cases where editors like to cherry pick labels where sources usually don't justify why the label applies, but as LABEL suggests, we shouldn't be using the label in these cases anyway.

Or the tl;dr - labels should never be used without context for explaining the reason the label applies; we want editors to focus on that rather than just outright inclusion of the label and move on from that. --Masem (t) 01:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. I don't see how anything either Newimpartial or I said contradicts the idea of presenting the context for why a term like "climate-change denier" (or "Holocaust denier", etc.) is applied to a given individual. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I've seen far too much in articles is the focus on "well, all theses RSes use this term so we should just present it as fact", but do not address anything about context, which creates the problem with NPOV issues if that context isn't addressed. The whole issue of "a label used by a near majority of sources shouldn't need in-line attribution" could be better answered by focusing more on how we present the context where a label would be used by describing the elements that lead to a label. If we focused more on the label use in the larger context of describing why the label applies, rather than just term-droppping it, it would make more sense what conditions we could present that label without the need for direct in-line attribution. --Masem (t) 02:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- to be clear, we are required (not merely allowed) to follow the consensus of sources There is nothing that says we are lemmings with respect to mainstream media. We are required to make sure the majority view point is well established per DUE/WEIGHT, but that does absolutely does not mean we take that as fact. Especially in this day and age where the bulk of our sourcing leans left, which is a known systematic bias that we are required to try to work against. This is not saying that the bulk of RS are not reliable, simply that when you put that together with 24/7 news reporting and the rise of accountability journalism that mixes editorial with factual reporting, we absolutely should not be taking every work published by mainstream as fact, we should be able to analyze these sources from a 60,000 ft view of the overall situation to understand where statements are likely opinion rather than fact, and particularly in the case of labels, handle those with care. I'm still of the opinion there's ways we can handle a near-universally shared label among sources to avoid direct in-line attribution listing out 10-20+ works, but the wording has to be clear its not a fact but a consensus derived from multiple sources. --Masem (t) 14:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  How would you present "a near-universally shared label among sources to avoid direct in-line attribution listing out 10-20+ works"? Cult is in the list. How would you describe Jim Jones in a way that indicates that (a) every reliable source written in the last several decades agrees that he really was a cult leader but (b) you don't want to say that it's a fact that he actually was a cult leader?
  
  Maybe I'm skipping a step. Do you even agree that it's possible for someone to be a cult leader in actual fact, and not merely as an opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's start with the fact that the word "cult" in Jones' article outside of In Popular Culture, See Also , and references, appears only 3 times: once in the lead, and twice in the Reactions and Legacy section before the Pop Culture section. We actually do not give any context for why Peoples Temple was considered a cult, or why Jones should be called a cult leader (And Peoples Temple only uses "cult" once.) This is the context issue here. Now we know at the end of the day that yes, Jones and People Temple are templates of how later 20th cults formed and behaved in the US, and RECENTISM doesn't apply at all here, so at some point is likely right that we should likely use "cult" without attribution but that context for its use has to be in the article and its just not there. --Masem (t) 01:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You say: We should likely use "cult" without attribution. (I agree with you; especially if those articles were developed to FA-level, this is an obvious use for such labels.)
    
    LABEL, however, says: "use in-text attribution."
    
    It is this specific conflict that I want to see resolved. LABEL should not tell people to do something that you wouldn't recommend them to do.
    
    I think one way to resolve it is to have LABEL demand compliance with INTEXT (and NPOV, too), rather than having LABEL assert "use in-text attribution" in every single situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, to read NPOV and INTEXT, those do not support converting "mass agreement on the use of subjective language of any type" in "factual statements in wikivoice" either, whether talking about use of labels or other types of quantifications. (WP:SPADE is an essay) Its not an issue with LABEL being wrong, but that we don't have language in NPOV or INTEXT to cover this type of case - but I agree we should. When a significant number of reliable sources share a common opinion about a topic (whether its using a label or other aspect), and this not just from flash-in-the-pan coverage but has been from enduring coverage of that topic (the RECENTISM line has been passed), then there's a good chance we can likely present that in a manner that eliminates the need for inline citation. Whether that can be said directly "X is Y" or alluded to as in "X is commonly said by media to be Y" or some other form is a separate question to be resolved and I am certain there are many possible answers here for this when certain approaches can be used or not. LABEL fits into that but it is not the only part of NPOV or INTEXT that would be effected, and hence why it is a problem at the NPOV/INTEXT level, not a problem at the LABEL level. --Masem (t) 00:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it is a nature of the discussions I have been involved in, but while I have seen both NPOV and LABEL used as Newimpartial succinctly put above to whitewash certain subjects, I have never seen INTEXT cited as a justification. I have to agree with WhatamIdoing, the problem is LABEL, not INTEXT or NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To take an example that does not involve LABEL, if we have 100-some sources that said "Mozart is one of the greatest pianists of all time", both NPOV and INTEXT state that we cannot simply repeat that in text without some type of in-text attribution because that still is a subjective claim. This is why I say this is a problem beyond just LABEL, because it would obviously and unnecessarily clumsy to have to name drop 100 sources in-line. We should have ways to handle a case like that, as welll as in cases for LABELs where there has been shown to be wide-spread agreement and endurance of the applicability of the label. --Masem (t) 01:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Sidewipe9th, the claim of whitewashing is always subjective. Take a case where there is debate if a subject should be called "transphobic" or even be labeled at transphobic with attribution. Newimpartial might view the use of LABEL to as whitewashing. However, other editors, acting in equal good faith, see it as a questionable label. Essentially they would argue it's black washing. Why is one better than the other? How many times has LABEL been used to prevent an article from unreasonably having a contentious label applied in Wiki-voice? Isn't that a good thing? To use a legal analogy, which is better, a legal system that catches more baddies but also captures more innocent people or the other direction, one that almost never falsely accuses or prosecutes but leaves more baddies on the streets? I guess that depends on your own views on morality. Ideally we want a set of rules that "always gets it right" but, often unlike criminal law, this is a big case of gray. If one activist says X is racist, is that DUE? What about when 5 or 10 make the claim? What if 5 or 10 news articles report that the subject was called racist by activist? What if 1 news source says it in their own voice? What if one academic publication says it in the subject is racist? With so much gray which way should we err? I feel in the direction of do no harm since descriptions and justifications can always be substituted for subjective labels assuming the sources actually support it. If the sources don't then we shouldn't use the label. Springee (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: I can think of about 5 or 6 discussions that I have been involved in, where there is sufficient sourcing to state in wikivoice that the subject of the article is transphobic, and LABEL has been used to block those changes. In two of those discussions, it resulted in a truly astounding amount of words being committed on the talk page before participants either left because they were exhausted, or an RfC was opened and consensus was found for that addition.
    It is not possible to "both sides" this, as that is a false equivalence. If there is insufficient sourcing to establish whether or not the subject of the article is a negative value laden label, then through NPOV and INTEXT it is impossible to blackwash. However because of the way that LABEL is currently written, it is very easy to meet the criteria of NPOV and INTEXT, and still use LABEL to whitewash. That is not a good thing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful to see those discussions where LABEL is being used to whitewash, both as to judge if "sufficient sourcing" has been shown (more than cherry picking) and how the arguments are presented that say LABEL says not to include. If sufficient sourcing is met (with potentially other caveats like RECENTISM), then the label can be included but attribution should be included. There's also the potential alloways for if there's clearly show near universal use of a label by sources, a potential way to stat that without the need for in-line attribution, but that's the issue we need to discuss with any subjective aspect at INTEXT, not just LABELS. --Masem (t) 17:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    "Transphobic" is used largely by the gay or trans press with unstated definitions that vary between sources and are much broader than what someone not in the original audience of those articles would normally assume. If past usage of "homophobic" is the average Wikipedia reader's mental yardstick then most would interpret transphobic to mean something beyond vocabulary disputes, JK Rowling, exclusion from women's sports, TERF, or a lack of interest in dating trans. If there are cases clearly in the intersection of how all sources and most readers could reasonably interpret the term, such as a violent criminal who exclusively attacks transgender people, then there is no dependence on definitions or value judgements (the dreaded Value Laden), but for things to reach that point there would probably be better options like citing a judicial verdict of hate as a motive.
    
    Also, because the term is not used in the strict sense of phobia, and its meanings and common usage are still evolving, RECENTISM is relevant not only to particular applications of the label but to the word itself. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sesquivalent, you have repeatedly made reference to sections of academia, medicine and now even the press that you seem to believe are influenced by some sort of LGBTQ movement or agenda and thus are unreliable.
    
    You have previously argued that we should discount official statements from the world's leading transgender health organizations because you believe they're trans-affiliated and therefore untrustworthy. In that same diff you call for an RS author's transgender identity to be treated as a COI. Here, on an article that provides biomedical information, you argue that we should give equal weight to the opinion of the Stanford chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry (an MD and published expert in the field of transgender health) as we do to the opinion of a freelance conservative journalist with no public health experience or training, because you think the Stanford MD has vested interests. And now in this comment above you argue that we should discount RS usage of a term because you believe those RS belong to some overall grouping of gay or trans press.
    
    I bring up these past comments of yours because I think they reflect an overall misunderstanding of how we evaluate sources on Wikipedia. Evaluations of source reliability are based on community consensus as to editorial practices of fact-checking, journalistic integrity and other factors as defined by WP:RS. Accusing mainstream media, academia, or medicine of a systemic bias and arguing that we should attempt to push back against this reeks of RightGreatWrongs thinking.
    
    To be clear: the arguments "RS agree that X is Y but I don't think those sources substantiate their arguments enough", "RS agree that X is Y but I don't think they clearly define Y enough in their articles", "RS agree that X is Y but I don't trust the gay/trans press" are not valid arguments against inclusion of a characterization in article space. We follow the sources, regardless of editors' personal opinions.
    
    As a side note, you may wish to consult a style guide (this is a very commonly used one) for the way you refer to transgender people. In your comment above (and at least once before) you seem to refer to transgender people as trans, as a noun (the plural of "tran", I guess). You've also referred to the state of being transgender as transgenderism. Neither of these are common or accepted terminology, and in the last decade or so the latter has been almost exclusively used by anti-trans activists (see e.g. here). Srey Sros^talk 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 573: / Line 573: @@
 ***::::::: "Transphobic" is used largely by the gay or trans press with unstated definitions that vary between sources and are much broader than what someone not in the original audience of those articles would normally assume.  If past usage of "homophobic" is the average Wikipedia reader's mental yardstick then most would interpret transphobic to mean something beyond vocabulary disputes, JK Rowling, exclusion from women's sports, TERF, or a lack of interest in dating trans.  If there are cases clearly in the intersection of how all sources and most readers could reasonably interpret the term, such as a violent criminal who exclusively attacks transgender people, then there is no dependence on definitions or value judgements (the dreaded Value Laden), but for things to reach that point there would probably be better options like citing a judicial verdict of hate as a motive.
 ***::::::: Also, because the term is not used in the strict sense of phobia, and its meanings and common usage are still evolving,  RECENTISM is relevant not only to particular applications of the label but to the word itself.  [[User:Sesquivalent|Sesquivalent]] ([[User talk:Sesquivalent|talk]]) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
+***::::::::{{u|Sesquivalent}}, you have repeatedly made reference to sections of academia, medicine and now even the press that you seem to believe are influenced by some sort of LGBTQ movement or agenda and thus are unreliable.
+***::::::::You have previously {{diff2|1059918984|argued}} that we should discount official statements from the world's leading transgender health organizations because you believe they're {{tq|trans-affiliated}} and therefore untrustworthy. In that same diff you call for an RS author's transgender identity to be treated as a COI. {{diff2|1061892430|Here}}, on an article that provides [[WP:BIOMED|biomedical information]], you argue that we should give equal weight to the opinion of the Stanford chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry (an MD and published expert in the field of transgender health) as we do to the opinion of a freelance conservative journalist with no public health experience or training, because you think the Stanford MD has {{tq|vested interests}}. And now in this comment above you argue that we should discount RS usage of a term because you believe those RS belong to some overall grouping of {{tq|gay or trans press}}.
+***::::::::I bring up these past comments of yours because I think they reflect an overall misunderstanding of how we evaluate sources on Wikipedia. Evaluations of source reliability are based on community consensus as to editorial practices of fact-checking, journalistic integrity and other factors as defined by [[WP:RS]]. Accusing mainstream media, academia, or medicine of a systemic bias and arguing that we should attempt to push back against this reeks of {{wli|RightGreatWrongs}} thinking.
+***::::::::To be clear: the arguments ''"RS agree that X is Y but I don't think those sources substantiate their arguments enough"'', ''"RS agree that X is Y but I don't think they clearly define Y enough in their articles"'', ''"RS agree that X is Y but I don't trust the gay/trans press"'' are not valid arguments against inclusion of a characterization in article space. We follow the sources, regardless of editors' personal opinions.
+***::::::::As a side note, you may wish to consult a style guide ([https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender this] is a very commonly used one) for the way you refer to transgender people. In your comment above (and {{diff2|1068097014|at least once before}}) you seem to refer to transgender people as {{tq|trans}}, as a noun (the plural of "tran", I guess). You've also {{diff2|1061408671|referred}} to the state of being transgender as {{tq|transgenderism}}. Neither of these are common or accepted terminology, and in the last decade or so the latter has been almost exclusively used by anti-trans activists (see e.g. [https://www.focusonthefamily.com/get-help/understanding-transgenderism/ here]). [[User:SreySros|<span style="color:#2B6EC4">Sr</span><span style="color:#EA3699">ey</span> <span style="color:#EA3699">Sr</span><span style="color:#2B6EC4">os</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:SreySros|talk]]</sup> 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)