Talk:Power word

Merge completed[edit]

For an April 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Power word

Given that the results of the debate were unanimously for merge, why is this article still here? Soo 18:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Three years later we will have no sources. I will merge this into loaded language, as agreed. --Duncan (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the comment below, I did not take over the long list of examples, only the definition. --Duncan (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Freedom section[edit]

I take question with the following - "An example of the word freedom used as a power word would be a terrorist group calling themselves 'freedom' fighters, or conversely, an army invading another country to conquer it, and calling it "liberating" the country. For instance, the American invasion of Iraq, was dubbed 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'."

This seems rather non-neutral to me, and putting the sentence about the American operation directly after the bit about conquering wrongly implies to the reader that the purpose of OIF was to conquer Iraq. Perhaps we could find an example of a country whose actual intent was to conquer as a better example? Regards, Irishnightwish (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Neo" a Power Word ?[edit]

Is there really such a thing as a "neutral" power-word? This category seems to have been stuffed in haphazardly and is badly written.

I don't think it is. "Neo" just means "new", as in a new resurgence (e.g. neo-liberal, a return of classical liberalism) or a new development (e.g. neo-conservative, a new development in conservatism). A word (or in this case a prefix) that neither raises nor reduces the subjective impression of a phrase is by definition not a power word. — Gwalla | Talk 22:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Neo" ends in a vowel sound which is useful in that it can easily be voiced in front of consonant leading words. "New-classical" takes slightly more effort to say than "Neo-classical" to speakers of English. The same can be said for vowel leading words such as order. "New Order" 'sounds better' to English speakers than "Neo Order". Neo and New generally depend on the word it is attached to and shouldn't be considered 'power words'. Argentak (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Fundamentalist" a Power Word ?[edit]

"Fundamentalist" is a word to avoid according to the Wikipedia style guide: "Words to Avoid". The reason given seems to imply that it is a power word. Any thoughts?

D&D[edit]

What, no mention of Power Word: Stun and Power Word: Kill? :-P —No-One Jones ^(mail) 05:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually it probably should go in here... I'll see what i can do... but don't wait for me, any changes/additions are in fact welcome. Beta m (talk)

Major Addition[edit]

OK, i've done some major additions and changes in the page layout. What i'm conserned about is that i could have ... slightly pushed my pov in some cases (although i've tried my hardest not to). So if somebody can plz look through it and change my wording when necessary before somebody will come in and just start deleting chunks of text here and there. Beta m (talk)

Abortion[edit]

I just made a revert. I think we need to be very careful, and say as little as possible about this one. Many feel that pro-choice = pro-infanticide. Others feel that Pro-Life = subjegation of women. Lets say as little as possible while getting the basics across, and leave the debate for elsewhere, shall we?

How about "Pro-life"--->Opposed to legal abortion, Pro-choice--->in favor of legalizing abortion? Meelar (talk) 14:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life--->Opposed to abortion, Pro-choice--->in favor of legal abortion?

Well, I don't think there should be debate, and to avoid debate, we should describe things as they are, even if this means being a little awkward. "Pro-life" people want to make/keep abortion illegal, or even criminal (except perhaps in some specific circumstances, like after rape); and "pro-choice" people want to make/keep it legal in most cases. That's totally descriptive and non-POV, isn't it?

I think that, on the other hand, the preceding characterizations were imprecise and even POV. "Pro-choice" people are not (well, in general) in favor of abortion — that is, they do not contend that women should abort. They are, however, in favor of women having the possibility of aborting legally — which we may call a "right", though perhaps the word "right" is too positively loaded.

Characterizing "pro-choice" people as pro-abortion seems to endorse a certain "pro-life" polemical point of view, which claims that "pro-choice" people are in favor of killing fetuses. It is the same kind of confusion that is sometimes used in the debate on the legalization of drugs, where people that are in favor of making drugs legal are accused of being in favor of drug consumption.

I therefore think that we should not endorse such semantic lapses and should stick to factual definitions, even if they're longer and boring. David.Monniaux 15:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whats wrong w "Pro-life--->Opposed to abortion, Pro-choice--->in favor of legal abortion?"

That's fine with me. I'd even say "Pro-life: opposed to legal abortion". (For instance: one can be opposed to the consumption of drugs, while still not opposing the legalization of drugs, for instance because one thinks that drugs are bad, but that the adverse effects of prohibition could be worse.) David.Monniaux 15:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: While most people seem to associate "pro-life" exclusively with "anti-abortion," the "pro-life" movement also traditionally has included anti-euthanasia and anti-infanticide positions, among others (see the related article). I mention that fact in case it helps determine the usage in this instance; nonetheless, it is undeniably a power word in its usage, in any case. Lawikitejana 06:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRC->U.S. Democratic Party[edit]

I've reverted the "Democratic" power word description back to its orignal which mentions the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's use as a power word is much more clear with this example. It wasn't too long ago that someone changed it (to make a political statement?) but I didn't track down exactly who and when. --joeOnSunset 22:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

there are a lot of what seem to be POV statements in this article, especially in the politics section:

Democracy. This word is used to make one's actions and beliefs to be seen as more acceptable, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which used the word as part of the country's name. (The modern-day Democratic Republic of China was preceded by the so-called "Congo Free State". In reality, this was a brutal tyranny, in which the despicable King Leo of Belgium and his cronies forced the native Africans to work 24/7 harvesting the Congo's natural resources, to feed his insatiable greed.)
God. "One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all!", et cetera, et cetera... (Sometimes, this phrase is sometimes used to justify things that would arguably be highly disagreeable from God's point of view!)
Republic. Same as democracy such as the Republican Party of the United States and other countries as well.
- Many countries such as the aforementioned Democratic Republic of Congo, or the (also falsely named) People's Republic of China.
- Collectively North Korea and Laos score the highest points here, being officially named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Lao People's Democratic Republic respectively, even though these names couldn't be further from the truth!

also, certain parts of the article have an overly-friendly and conversational tone, instead of the encyclopedic syntax seen in most other articles. if i get time i'll clean it up. 192.223.226.6 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's seriously POV, it definitely needs a clean-up. --Onias 13:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this, I'm relieved I'm not the first to notice this.--Ccosta 03:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Remember, power words and power phrases are ways of "dressing up" one's message to make it more likely that people will take the speaker seriously, and, hopefully, agree with him or her. In politics, this often means trying to embellish the positive aspects of, and cover up the negative aspects of a politician's own schemes, while embellishing the negative aspects of, and covering up the positive aspects of, the plans of his or her opponents. As such, these should all be taken with a grain of salt!

This, too, is incredibly biased, and more so, is unsourced. For God's sake, even the links are biased. This sounds like a blog entry.Sobriquet 04:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These POV concerns are valid and are present again in the article, so I'm readding the POV tag. Neitherday (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is perfect but I think this article is pretty brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.242.154 (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh>[edit]

I spent almost three hours totally overhauling this article for neutrality and much else, and then my f#$*ing browser crashed before I could save it. Arrrrggh. Well, I've added this to my watch list and some time when I have the spirit to tackle it again, I'll re-do all that work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC) PS: sorry about the broken wikilinks in my earlier spate of edits. I wasn't previewing carefully enough![reply]

Need to add "subversive" to the political section[edit]

Right now the article on "political subversion" doesn't have a discussion of this issue, but "subversive" has been used in Latin American politics considerably in a function similar to "dissident" — to denigrate and even demonize political opposition. This article seems like one good place for a mention of that usage. Lawikitejana 07:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hooligan" and "Cosmopolitan"[edit]

I'm looking for better references to explain the old Soviet power words "hooligan" and "cosmopolitan". Cecil Adams is the only one I can find, but I'd prefer something a bit more authoritative. Does anybody have anything?

BTW, "hooligan" referred to political protesters; "cosmopolitan" referred to Jews. They were often used in the Soviet media to (respectively) denigrate political opposition and bolster anti-Semitism. --Charlene 07:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me more like they were used in English translation of Soviet propaganda, since neither of those are Russian words; who knows what the Soviets actually were saying... "Hooligan" is most frequently used in English to refer to over-excited fans at soccer and other sporting events. I'd agree it's a "power word" because the establishment types like to use the word to mean "perpetrator or inciter of violence or other unlawful action at a sporting event" out of one side of their mouth, then label any hardcore sports fan with the same word out of the other. It's a similar trick to the "skateboarders destroy property" line, to get anti-skateboarding ordinances passed (in reality, certain vandalous skateboarders damage property, and should be prosecuted as vandals, while the rest do not, any more than rollerskaters or bicyclists do.) It's a common abuse of political language to create or use a label for a group and then either make unfounded generalizations about the group (skateboarders = vandals) or expand the scope of the group to unsupportably wide reaches (fans = hooligans). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I nominate this for deletion?[edit]

This article is at best original research. I don't see a source anywhere, or even get the feeling that the editors had actually looked at a source for their info. The topic of power words may be notable, but anyone who thinks of a word can put it down, regardless of relevance or neutrality. It's been tagged for both of these reasons, and I don't think it deserves to exist. Unless someone could really clean this up, this is the fullest realization of what Wikipedia is not. If you hate clicking, DO NOT click here. 05:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know Wikipedia well enough to figure out how to nominate something for deletion, you shouldn't be nominating anything for deletion. Learn da ropes. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but how would you improve this? I don't know if this can be improved to a quality encyclopedic article. I mean, the whole point of the article is that certain words can make an argument more convincing. Then it lists a bunch of examples. There's no content. But perhaps it can be fixed.

I once heard an interview in which this woman described a study, in which people were shown a photo, and asked some questions about what they remembered having seen, and the changing of 'a broken mirror' to 'the broken mirror' in a question caused a lot of people to remember a broken mirror in the photo, which didn't exist. So there should be academic papers on this effect. Perhaps one or two to cite would do the source trick. Of course, is it even possible to find even a quasi-objective list of power words to use as a source? 'President Bush uses several power words in his speeches' is inherently POV (though everyone knows it). Historical examples would be easier to find objective examples for, say, Manifest Destiny. Perhaps a discussion section for the modern would be less prone to bias, with a list structure (much as it is now) for a historical section.If you hate clicking, DO NOT click here. 04:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a power word?[edit]

Epidemic. Used to describe anything widespread. It began as a term to describe a quickly-spreading disease. It has progressively become more vague into "anything that is widespread, regardless of nature or time period". For example, an epidemic may be used to describe people who play video games and watch TV, when in fact both have been around for decades.

Okay, what EXACTLY is redeeming about this article? I haven't made any edits to this article because there's nothing of substance or of source to improve, and I've seen it go unchanged for months. It portrays conservatives and Christians (almost exclusively) as the purveyors of power words. Or it makes no sense at all, as above. The moral/immoral thing is stupid too. No matter how true many of them may be, the example section contains blatant and unsourced editoralizing on the vast majority of entries, or is poorly-written and vaguely defined. I want to learn how to nominate this for deletion, if possible. Last time I said this, someone told me to "learn the ropes" first, which is fine, but maybe someone who KNOWS the ropes to teach me or them/herself take action w.r.t. improving the article. If you hate clicking, DO NOT click here. 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawling List[edit]

This article at this point is primarily a sprawling list. WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO This article should focus more on what a power word is rather than list every single power word anyone can come up with. A small handful of examples used as examples throughout the text would be fine, but this article needs a major cleanup. Neitherday 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NOT#DICT is probably the most relivant here. If no one has any objections, I'm going to attempt to clean this article up in the next few days. Neitherday 03:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I favor deleting the entire examples section entirely. If necessary, provide ONE neutral example. Pusher robot 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been many days and no one has brought up any objections to my intended changes to the article, I have gone ahead and made the changes I previously discussed. Neitherday 21:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has returned to it's sprawling list state and direly needs to be cleaned up. There is not one source here that labels any of these words as a "power word". This list appears to be original research. Neitherday (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Is the neutrality of the current version still in dispute? If not, I'm going to remove the tag. Neitherday 04:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the NPOV and cleanup templates from the top of the article. If anyone disagrees with this move, feel free to add one or both of them back. Neitherday 18:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left the other two templates in place. Neitherday 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source or the source?[edit]

I couldn't tell if this link is the only source of the term "Power word" or if it's something that can be used as a source. Fredsmith2 07:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]