Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

I'm resisting the itch to add the precious phrase "tender age" to MOS:WTW#Clichés and expressions. It's vague and subjective, particularly given that I've seen such absurdities as a person who entered a career at the "tender age" of 23 or thereabouts, or who retired at the "tender age" of 40-something. It makes me think the person writing it is thinking "Aw, they were so young!" In that regard, it amounts to editorial commentary. (So maybe it could also be mentioned at MOS:WTW#Editorializing?)

When a specific age isn't given, then in cases where it really does mean "at an early age", it should be replaced by "at an early age" or something similar. If we at least know the person was in their teens, then we could have "as a teenager". And so forth.

Where an age is given, like "... at the tender age of 9" it makes me think "As opposed to a non-tender age of 9?" The age is already there, and it is what it is! Why are you qualifying it?

I fully expect others will respond that "we already show enough examples". That's fine. It's just that the other day I went through my second round, a few years after my first, of editing the phrase out of scores of articles, and I felt like venting. Largoplazo (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The only two non-quotation instances left in the mainspace are in Spinetta II Malaspina#Offspring and Ferdinand I of Naples#Second conspiracy of the barons (1485-1486). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently going through the article Meiō incident, with the eventual goal of nominating it for WP:GA. It's clearly nowhere near ready yet, especially the last prose section, but I'm uncertain about one of the subsection's titles, "The tide turns" (in the "Subsequent events" section). I'm almost certain that this falls afoul of MOS:IDIOM, but I can't think of a better alternative. Any ideas? (I'm also open to changing the subsections.) Ships & Space_(Edits) 23:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes see it in the leads of BLPs and it is one of those words that conveys nothing except opinion. It's much like terrorist, in that way, which is already listed here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, because extreme relative to whose viewpoint? Masem (t) 00:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Masem I agree totally, but I see it all the time and it's like pulling teeth to remove, because people will take it as you trying to defend the person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

We have a large problem of editors that want to use a lot of label terms (identified on this page) without attribution because they can point to a handful of news sources for that. We shouldn't be doing that at least with any people or group where there hasn't been years of study from academic sources to make that determination. I suspect the cases you are seeing are based on more recent groups where its only current media making that assessment, so we should not at all be treating it factually in the short term. Masem (t) 04:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Really, an article shouldn't express in Wikipedia's own face subjective characterization found in reliable sources at all. It isn't for Wikipedia, for example, to declare a film a blockbuster, no matter how many critics have called it that. The article, in that case, can tell us, objectively, that many reviewers have described the film as a "blockbuster". Even there, I don't know whether we want to allow the same thing for "extremist", whether we should allow "many commentators describe X as an extremist". The difference, to me, is that what the best film is is obviously a matter of personal opinion, while some might interpret "extremist" to be a well-defined objective term, and will conclude for themselves that X is an extremist, not just that many sources call X that. Largoplazo (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Blockbuster status is not any less objective than whether someone's political opinions are "too much" in a negative way (what extremist means). You can quantify box office numbers, at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It is fair that within a reading of WEIGHT/DUE, that if enough reliable or expert commentors have called an entity or person as extremists, for us to include that stance with attribution, and more importantly, with the context that establishes why they have labeled it like that. "So-an-so was considered extremist by sources X, Y, and Z for their anti-governmental and racist views." is a completely fair line to include, with the right tone to clearly to the language out of Wikivoice but in line to summarize sources. Masem (t) 13:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the actual solution for this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion like this should be based on a couple of examples. However, if extremist is to be avoided, it should be attributed ("described as an extremist by [reliable source]"). That would only be WP:DUE if there was no reason to believe the opinion was from a normally reliable source which was in an argument with the person, for example, a Russian source (if any there are reliable) describing a Ukrainian as extremist. It would probably also be undue if only one source has the opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It is mostly used for far-righters, though I found a single example of it being applied to an Islamist. For some examples Martin Sellner, Victor Gunnarsson, Simon Sheppard (activist) Beate Zschäpe Franz Schönhuber, Donald Spitz, Jérôme Courtailler, Janusz Waluś Alex Davies (neo-Nazi), Paul Jennings Hill, Neil Erikson, Shelley Shannon, Yigal Amir are all described in wikivoice as an "extremist" as their one defining label with no attribution. As bad as they may be this is extremely clumsy writing and a NPOV issue; also, it fails to even be a proper lead label, as what do they do to engage in these views is not defined (this is what is actually notable about them). It's not like there aren't more precise terms to describe these activities. It is not like being a bad person means NPOV no longer applies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that "far-right" transports the presumably intended meaning well enough, making "extremist" redundant. Gawaon (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

"Far-right" is also a problem without attribution and/or stated in Wikivoice. Far right of what? (And even if you take the Overton window into account, its "center" varies significantly between countries) Masem (t) 13:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that leftie sources label anything they disagree with as "far right" and "extremist", and leftie sources are pretty much the only sources that can be cited on Wikipedia. Don't believe me? Try citing the New York Post (the third most circulated paper in the United States) or FOX News. Look at the flurry of discussion I stirred up here a few years ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

If some sources are unreliable and hence unusable, it's not we who are to blame for this. Gawaon (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon: Oh really? Who decided to deprecate the New York Post? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess you know where to find the relevant discussions. Our Reliable sources/Perennial sources page says: "There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication." – Do you think we should allow newspapers to get away with inventing or distorting facts? Gawaon (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon: The New York Post was the only large US media asserting Hunter's laptop was his. All the media green lighted "by consensus" called it Russian disinformation. There are many more examples. Don't be naive. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Gawaon (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

We have articles on far-right politics and far-left politics. As long as there is a near consensus in RS that something falls under either of these labels, I would see no problem with using them in Wikipedia's voice. Gawaon (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

We can absolutely discuss the nature of what extremism, far-right or far-left politics in wikivoice as long as we're not directly labeling any person or entity as being such, unless there is a academic body from decades of study to do that. But as soon as we switch to wanting to use these labels towards a person or group based on current sources, that's a problem and that's where attribution must come into play. Masem (t) 16:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, we do constantly label people as these things, so we "can" do them, and there is very little pushback against it, whether there "should" be or not. I have less objection to "far-right" as a label than "extremist", as it does refer to a specific meaningful thing; I don't know what the alternative to far-right would even be, in terms of description. But, I doubt I could even get consensus for removing extremist in any of these cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to make sure we don't rush to make these labels in wikivoice, but its very easy to get drown out by hard-core editors that insist they must be called that way. There needs to be a larger wikipedia movement to get this approach to change. Masem (t) 20:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but I am curious what we would replace, for example, "far-right" with in the case of Martin Sellner, for example. If someone is a self avowed National Socialist we tend to have less of a problem with that but for someone like Sellner what descriptors would you suggest we use? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Its taking it out of wikivoice, adding who makes the claim, and adding the context of why those sources make that claim. So instead of adding the label in the lede sentence as it is now (that would reduce to Austrian political activist, and leader of the Identitarian Movement of Austria, which he co-founded in 2012.", it would be placed later in the lede as something like "Sellner is seen as far-right activist by X, Y, and Z due to his ties with white supremacist groups" (or somethig like that, I'm gleaning from the article)". We don't lose that info and label, but provide the proper context so we're not presenting it in wikivoice as this guideline page demands. Masem (t) 21:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I predict people would take umbrage with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I know they do when I've suggested that, though that is how we stay NPOV in both material and tone, while including appropriate DUE information. Editors, intentionally or not, want to throw as much negative stuff on people and groups where current media sources use such terms, in a type of WP:RGW style of editing, which may make them feel like they are doing something good to make sure "bad" people are called out, but that has no place in Wikipedia. Masem (t) 02:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, in any case I have removed extremist, at least, from all the above examples, and will do so as I see it, with an edit summary that links to this discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The word "extremist" is included in the same list as "terrorist". It existed immediately after the page was created in 2010, there is also WP:EXTREMIST that redirects to the section. What am I missing? Kelob2678 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that no one actually abides by this rule when they can find a citation for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, but I don't see how the guideline should be tweaked so more people follow it. In any case, there is a long-standing consensus that "extremist" is a word to avoid per this page. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and the page says "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution" (emphasis added) – so anyone who objects to that can at least be directed towards this page. Gawaon (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I am wondering if it would be a good idea to add a section on future officeholders, such as if someone says "future President of the United States", or "this person was to become the future Prime Minister". I have thought about this topic a lot since seeing someone add that JD Vance was to become the "future Vice President of the United States" in this edit. The creation of this section would be very useful and informative to keep consistency in the language used across Wikipedia, we already have a few words regarding the use of "then" (MOS:PERSONOROFFICE) in official titles, so we already have a precedent for the kind of information we should strive to create. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Unlike the thread above, this one is not listed here, but I feel it matches what the policy describes. I am inclined to think so, because it is utterly subjective, far more than extremist which is listed here, and an opinion statement, and we should avoid saying opinions in wikivoice. Of course, it can be attributed as per MOS:LABEL - but do others agree it would be a phrase to avoid in Wikivoice per MOS:LABEL? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)