Wikipedia:Red-flag words and phrases
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This essay is intended to help editors notice warning signs of potential policy violations. Bear in mind that context is everything, and there are many exceptions. Always assume good faith, and if you find a real problem, avoid confrontation and fault-finding by just fixing it yourself. |
Spotting red-flag words and phrases in Wikipedia articles
[edit]Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral tone, avoid editorializing, and be based on reliably sourced, verifiable content. However, certain words or phrases—whether added in good faith or not—can signal violations of core content policies such as NPOV (neutral point of view), NOR (no original research), and V (verifiability). The use of single words can radically change the tone of an article, so framing is important.
This page presents a table of "red-flag" terms that often warrant closer scrutiny. These are not forbidden words, and in some contexts they may be appropriate. However, their presence should prompt editors to double-check for neutrality, source quality, proper attribution, and policy compliance.
Table: Red-flag words and phrases
[edit]| Style issue | Example words/phrases | Why it's a red flag |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective or loaded language | clearly, obviously, undoubtedly, disgracefully, ironically, so-called, controversial | Implies editorial judgment; violates WP:NPOV unless directly attributed |
| Dismissive or judgmental tone | allegedly, claims (in excess), admitted, confessed, bizarre, outrageous, dubious | Casts doubt or implies guilt; needs careful attribution per WP:NPOV |
| Weasel words (vague sourcing) | some people say, many believe, it is widely thought, experts agree, observers noted | Violates WP:V and WP:OR — who says? Must be attributed to reliable sources |
| Implicit synthesis or original conclusions | this suggests that..., therefore, it can be inferred, may be linked to... | Can be WP:SYNTH unless directly stated by a cited source |
| Editorial voice and hedging | interestingly, notably, in fact, it is worth noting, at the time | Intrudes on WP:NPOV; often used to guide reader interpretation instead of presenting facts |
| Imprecise or passive attribution | it has been reported, it is known that, it was said | Obscures sourcing; fails to meet WP:V and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV standards |
| Preferred neutral alternatives | said, stated, testified, wrote, described, characterized, argued, denied | These are neutral verbs that clearly attribute views without editorial spin |
Other advice
[edit]Always attribute, not assert. Use precise verbs: said, stated, argued, described, characterized, denied, testified, etc.