Wikipedia:避けたい言葉

原文：w:Wikipedia:Words to avoid

There are no words that should never be used in wikipedia articles. However, there are many words and phrases that are good flags for text that is inappropriate for an article, either because it breaks NPOV or for some other reason. In general, prefer nouns and verbs before adjectives and adverbs.

記事で使えない言葉はありません。しかしながら、中立的な観点などを崩してしまうような、不適切な文章になってしまう単語や句がたくさんあります。一般的には、形容詞や副詞といった修飾語より、名詞や動詞といった被修飾語を用いた方がいいとされています。

Obvious, etc.

Of course, obviously, clearly, etc. can all sound very condescending. If what you're saying is too obvious to include in the text, then don't include it. If some readers may not know or understand it, don't make them feel uncomfortable using these terms; it is as if you are saying that they are stupid.

「明らかな」「明白な」など

「もちろん」「明らかな」「明確に」「はっきりと」などは、非常に見下している印象を与える。分かりきっている事なら、書かなくていいです。知らなかったり、理解できなかったりする人が、あたかもバカであると言っているかのように、不愉快にさせる言葉を使わないで下さい。

Occasionally "of course" can be useful in a step of an explanation if it is really easy to understand, yet, for clarity, useful not to skip. In such a case it avoids that the reader wonders whether the step is as simple as it looks or that there is something behind it.

Subtly advancing certain POVs

Well-meaning, so-called

Well meaning and so-called can be used to smear without actually including any facts.

However

Text like "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." implies that the latter assertion is truer or better than the former one. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z.", although even the simple order of presentation raises concerns about neutrality.

Fundamentally

Against use: Statements about what X "fundamentally is" ignore the fact that we create all categories and can do with them as we please. People who prefer different category schemes (i.e. any two people) may disagree about the "fundamental nature" of X, and unless they share some arbitrary set of definitions they can never settle the question.

Naturally

Use naturally for "in a natural manner," such as:

• Plutonium can be naturally occurring.
• Obsidian is a type of naturally occurring glass.
• Cultural anthropologists assume that human beings are naturally social.

Do not use naturally for "wouldn't you just know it," such as: +"Naturally, Protestant critics have jumped on this bandwagon."

Do not use naturally for "without a doubt," such as:

• Machiavelli's life falls naturally into three periods.

That sounds like the first meaning to me and quite acceptable. --zero

No, it implies that dividing Machiavelli's life into three periods is the only acceptable way to look at things. What if someone believes that Machiavelli's life had four major periods? Is that 'unnatural'? --Egomaniac

• The point of Brahms's work has naturally been lost by critics.

I agree this one is bad. --zero

I can see times when it would be ok: "naturally, he was delighted to be awarded the Nobel Prize" ;) -- Tarquin 09:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Care to run that by Sinclair Lewis or Marlon Brando? --Calieber 13:28, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Linked

This term is often used to describe terrorist groups, e.g. "the al-Qaeda-linked Jama'at Islamiya", but it is curiously devoid of meaning and may hide lack of information. Describing two entities as "linked" unnecessarily obfuscates their relationship - if more information is available, the relationship should be clearly spelled out; if information is tenuous this should also be made clear. "Linked" may describe a broad range of relationships between two groups, and therefore may make that relationship seem unrealistically strong.

Statistics

Be careful when presenting and in particular interpreting statistics. Avoid mixed phrases such as "30% of British households have pets; 1.5 million of these are dogs". This doesn't tell you about the proportion of dogs to other pets; neither does it tell you the actual amount of households with pets. This should not be a problem if you cite your sources.

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

Categories

Cult

This word is very controversial, and has several different meanings, mostly negative. In general it should be avoided--don't say "X is a cult", say "so and so has called X a 'cult' because...".

The one exception is the technical use this term has in sociology, which is quite neutral (i.e. small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society). However, you shouldn't use the term in that sense without explaining exactly what you are doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people.

The word 'sect' is far more neutral and inoffensive, as it doesn't imply novelty or tension. There are lots of sects: Sufis, Quakers, Mennonites, Amish, etc., who aren't very novel (they even kind of avoid novelty) and don't make anyone else very tense. Often, sects follow guidelines that undergo some slow modification over time using some kind of consensus process while cults follow charismatic leaders or doctrines in writing that never change, giving all power to the person currently editing the dictionary.

Yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions. Christianity was considered a cult by the Roman Empire in the 1st Century. Falun Gong and some branches of Chistianity are considered cults to the Chinese government. Scientology was a cult in the USA at one time. In general, any New belief system clashes with the "tried and true" extant system in place within a social or religious order. (However, some relatively young Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian denominations call the Catholic Church a cult. What's at stake is the power to pass judgement on what beliefs are considered "mainstream" or "true".)

However, it's entirely legitimate to observe that sects often stay small and neutral in politics to help people cooperate, while cults acquire weapons of mass destruction (e.g. belief itself) and wipe out empires - and thus become "great religions". Then, they break up into more peaceful sects...!

1. For interest's sake, I might point out that in French, culte means worship, and secte means cult. See false friend. -m

Terrorist

Arguments for use:

• It's a legitimate word with well-defined meaning. Dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing bodily harm for political reasons without actually being a government." When governments accuse each other of "state terror" you are over the line into political science and no definition will help you.
• The fact that most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations is not relevant to the fact that they are indeed terrorist (if they are, under a given definition). A comparison with the word "pseudo-science", which has been used in Wikipedia, might be illuminative.
• Unlike traditional media, Wikipedia can fully explore the semantic nuances of words. In fact, terrorism is a good example; it's cross-linked to asymmetric warfare and doublespeak and guerilla and assassin, etc. Instead of censoring ourselves, which would lead to a neurotic project (since it would have a rule which is in direct conflict with its mission), we can provide more information, better information, etc. Instead of simply calling someone a terrorist, we can say *why* we're doing that--say exactly who is calling who a terrorist, etc.

Arguments against use:

• There is no strict definition in use worldwide
• Any definition that could be agreed say in English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries (which have the world's most dangerous weapons in state hands already).
• One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It is impossible to use this word with NPOV.
• Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations
• Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist"
• There is no hope that we will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.
• There are many groups that some people call "terrorist", but embracing such labels would be very controversial, for example:
  • State of Israel
  • States of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the rule of Taliban
  • United States and CIA
  • Contemporary Palestine Liberation Organization
  • Almost all guerilla groups (like Tamil Tigers or Chechen rebels) are accused of being "terrorist"
  • Almost all guerilla groups accuse countries they fight against of being "terrorist"
  • Participants in the Boston Tea Party would be considered "terrorists" by British standards at the time--so labels of "terrorist" or not often depend on whether the so-called terrorists are successful in their "liberation efforts."
  • Resistance movement during World War II. Some historians even claim that resistance in Poland used biological weapons.
  • All forms of colonization which exposed indigenous peoples to diseases they had no immunity to, especially if they were vaguely aware they were doing it.

Legends

"As legend has it..." is often a screen for lazy research or bogus invented "legends" (some of which are harmless in intention). Pin down your source: "An early legend in Favola's life of St. Sancta..." etc. Unattributed passive voice is a slippery substitute for "legends": "Dumbo is thought to have..."

Bad Form

Controversy

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

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

See also

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)