விக்கிப்பீடியா:மழுப்பலான சொற்களை தவிர்த்தல்

கட்டற்ற கலைக்களஞ்சியமான விக்கிப்பீடியாவில் இருந்து.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

✔ இப்பக்கம் தமிழ் விக்கிபீடியாவில் style guideline தொடர்பான நடைமுறைகளை ஆவணப்படுத்துகிறது. கட்டாயமில்லை எனினும் இங்கு கூறப்பட்டுள்ளவற்றை பின்பற்றுமாறு வேண்டப்படுகிறீர்கள். விதிவிலக்குகள் தோன்றினால் பகுத்தறிவுடன் கூடிய நடைமுறையைப் பின்பற்றுங்கள்! முரண்பாடுகள் தோன்றின் பொது இணக்கத்தை அடையுமுன்னர் மாற்றங்களைச் செய்யாதிருங்கள்! முரண் களைய இதன் பொது பேச்சுப் பக்கத்தைப் பயன்படுத்துங்கள்!
குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

மழுப்பலான சொற்கள் என்று இங்கு குறிப்பிடுவன என்னவென்றால், எங்கு, யார், தெளிவாக என்ன கூறியுள்ளார்கள், என்ன நிறுவியுள்ளார்கள் என்று திட்டவட்டமாகக் குறிப்பிடாமல், அரையும் குறையுமாய், தனியொருவர் கருத்தை, "ஆய்வாளர்கள் சொல்கிறார்கள்", "நம்பப்படுகின்றது", "சிலர் கூறுகிறார்கள்", "அறிஞர்கள் கருதுகிறார்கள்" என்பது போன்ற மழுப்பலான சொற்களால் கூறுவனவாகும். இவ்வகைக் கூற்றுகளால், கூறிய செய்திகள் (நிறுவப்பட்ட) உண்மை போலும் தோற்றம் அளிக்கவல்லன. சில கூற்றுகளை இத்தகு சொற்களால் கூறும்பொழுது, ஏதோ அது பற்றி பெரிய கருத்துவேறுபாடு இருப்பது போலவும் ஒரு பொய்யான தோற்றம் ஏற்படுத்த வல்லது. இப்படி மழுப்பலான சொற்களால் கூறவந்த செய்தி பொய்யானது என்பது அல்ல கருத்து, அக்கூற்றுகள் பொய்யான தோற்றத்தை ஏற்படுத்துகின்றன.

Words that may introduce bias[தொகு]


குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4

Peacock terms.png

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.[1]

  • Peacock example:
  • Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter.
  • Just the facts:

Articles suffering from such language should be rewritten to correct the problem or may be tagged with the {{Peacock}} or {{Peacock inline}} templates.

Contentious labels[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—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. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix -gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.[2]

Unsupported attributions[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழி:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4

Weasel words.svg

"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[3] However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}} template so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).

Expressions of doubt[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4 Words such as supposed, apparent and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.


குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4 The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided to maintain an impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually, which implies a fact is contrary to expectations; make sure this is verifiable and not just assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and are often excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

More subtly, editorializing can produce implications not supported by the sources. Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second.

Synonyms for said[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4 Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter.

Expressions that lack precision[தொகு]


குறுக்கு வழி:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4 The word died is neutral and accurate; avoid euphemisms such as passed away. Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous. Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: do not use issue for problem or dispute, nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage.

If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that; living with is a verbose softener. Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal is clear and direct expression without causing unnecessary offense. Do not assume plain language is inappropriate.[4]

Clichés and idioms[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4 Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, or two-thirds. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for descriptions of icebergs; the small portion evident conveys the substance without gilding the lily. People in Wikipedia articles do not take the plunge, they simply do things. If a literal interpretation of a phrase makes no sense in the context of a sentence, it should be reworded. For more examples, Wiktionary includes a lengthy list of English idioms.

Relative time references[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழிகள்:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4

Prefer specific statements of time to general ones. Do not say, "Recently, public opinion has turned against Senator Smith." Instead say, "A Gallup poll in ஆகத்து 2022 showed Senator Smith's approval rating had dropped 7 percent since January." When material in an article may become out of date, follow the Wikipedia:As of guideline. Because seasons occur at various times around the world, consider instead using months, quarters, or other more widely applicable terms such as mid-year unless the season itself is pertinent (spring blossoms, autumn harvest).

Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past. "Traditional" is particularly pernicious because it implies immemorial established usage. It is better to use explicit dates supported by sources. Instead of "hamburgers are a traditional American food", say "the hamburger was invented in about 1900 and became widely popular in the US in the 1930s".[5]

Several templates exist that may be useful to alert readers to time-sensitive wording issues. For example, the template {{When}} is available for editors to indicate when a sentence, or part of one, should be worded more precisely. The {{out of date}} template may be used when an article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information.

Information can be written in a less time-dependent way by using the as of technique, implemented in the {{as of}} template; it additionally tags information that will become dated. {{as of|2022|08}} produces the text As of ஆகத்து 2022 and categorises the article appropriately. "A new widget is currently being developed" can usefully become something like "a new widget was under development as of 2008" or, if supported by a source, "it was announced in November 2007 that a new widget was being developed" (no need for {{as of}} template).

Unspecified place[தொகு]

குறுக்கு வழி:

வார்ப்புரு:Quote box4

Our readers are international, and probably not in the same town or country as you.

Neologisms and new compounds[தொகு]

Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non-, anti-, or -like to existing words to create new compounds can aid brevity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. Adding -ism to a word, for instance, may suggest a tenuous belief system is well established.

Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities[தொகு]

Wikipedia is not censored and its encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the original source. But language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make the article less accurate or relevant and there is no suitable alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves the topic.

See also[தொகு]


  1. The template {{Peacock term}} is available for inline notation of such language where used inappropriately.
  2. The template {{POV-statement}} is available for inline notation of such language where used inappropriately.
  3. The templates {{Who}}, {{Which?}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed.
  4. The National Federation of the Blind, for instance, opposes terms such as sightless in favor of the straightforward blind. Similarly, the group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the plain phrase blind people; see Resolution 93-01, National Federation of the Blind, July 9, 1993, accessed April 26, 2010.
  5. "Original", "traditional", "authentic", and other distracting terminology

பிழை காட்டு: <ref> tags exist for a group named "refs", but no corresponding <references group="refs"/> tag was found