How should loaded language be handled in a Wikipedia article to maintain neutrality?

Loaded language, which refers to words or phrases that evoke strong emotions or opinions, should be avoided or carefully attributed in Wikipedia articles to maintain neutrality. The primary strategy is to replace loaded terms with more neutral alternatives that convey the same information without expressing a biased viewpoint. When it's necessary to describe someone else's use of loaded language, it should be presented in quotation marks and attributed to the specific individual or source that used it. This clarifies that the language represents a particular opinion, not a neutral statement of fact. Avoid using loaded language in the article's own voice, even when describing controversial topics. Instead, focus on presenting factual information and different perspectives, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. For example, instead of saying 'The corrupt politician wasted taxpayer money,' a neutral phrasing would be 'The politician spent taxpayer money on [specific item],' citing a reliable source that reports the expenditure. If the politician's actions have been described as 'corrupt' by reliable sources, the article can state 'Sources such as [Source A] and [Source B] have described the politician's actions as corrupt,' making it clear that this is an attributed opinion, not an assertion of fact.