Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT TO WELL-MEANING WIKIPEDIANS
Before contributing your inevitable witty objection concerning the stylistic or content choices made in this article contradicting its own message, please consider first if your objection would also apply to the Avoid Self Reference guideline's numerous references to itself.
If they would, it is recommended that you take a few minutes to meditate on the differences between project space and article space.
Have a nice day. -AceMyth 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- "take a few minutes to meditate on the differences between project space and article space."
- So are we to take it that your opinion is that the style guide need not live up to the standards of the rest of wikipedia? This would indeed explain some things about the style guide.
- "Have a nice day."
- and i hate you is also weasel word, quoted by ross franklin schwab
- -- 68.11.154.229
- Polite, and yet, condescending. A nice balance.
It says avoid, not obliterate. This article could make an explicit exception for itself under "Clear...".BrewJay (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- (1) "avoid vs. obliterate" -- this is the "it's just a rule of thumb" fall-back again. I think this is something of a cop-out. It is not the way the adherents of the "weasel word" doctrine treat it... they go plowing through wikipedia with the monotonous regularity of a bot, appending "weasel" tags to any of the Forbidden Phrases.
- (2) "explicit exception" -- yes, the article could give itself permission to use the Forbidden Phrases, just like the boss can give himself a bonus during a period of layoffs. It may be logically consistent, but it still looks awfully hypocritical. -- Doom (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] (subsequent discussion)
- It is quite important to note that this guideline is indeed in poor shape, style-wise; it is too long, there are too many examples, it rambles, and it confuses WP:NPOV and WP:VER. There are repeated comments on the talk page to the effect (that the guideline is not really helpful), irrespective of occasional joke edits to the article page. This has nothing to do with self-reference or self-contradiction, it is just that the article is in need of a major rewrite so that it has a decipherable meaning, a meaning that can be summed up coherently, in a few phrases, in sensible and pleasant english, which it does not do at present. — Newbyguesses - Talk 11:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Too long, too many examples - that's correct, and this guideline could be improved by trimming the rambling down to a few concise, powerful sentences. This current form is a stage of improvement from the way this guideline used to be, when it didn't bother justifying or explaining its point at all.
- But the "repeated comments" that this guideline is not helpful or, as you put it, lacking in decipherable meaning, they're just absurd and they prove absolutely nothing. The guideline leaves no question as to what weasel words are. It defines what makes for a weasel word and explains how using them can sabotage Neutrality and Verifiability (which by no means constitutes a conflation of these two concepts). The criticisms you speak of do not stem from petty issues like form and presentation; their tone often betrays an outright rejection of the notion that there's something such as weasel words at all or that Wikipedia should admonish against their usage in any way. Usually when an opinion is oft-cited it is worthy of consideration, but even the most flattering sort of consideration I could muster for this position concludes it to be flat out wrong. I think most editors who have ever faced the challenge of striving to NPoV on a controversial article would agree with me. --AceMyth 03:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- With apologies to User:AceMyth, this editor did not check too many past versions of the project page before launching the current aspersions as to clarity. Much progress has undoubtedly been made over time.
- Agreed also, many of the complaints on the talk page are flat out wrong (that undermines the current argument substantially, as you have pointed out). Also agreed, is it, then, <too long, too many examples - that's correct>. My suggestion, and I am toning it down, note the apology for my former intemperence, is keep most of the article, but drop all the examples, for now, and develop a better lot. It is better to trim now, find out what is supposedly being said. (Such a major rewrite is almost certainly beyond my capacities, yet, after some thought, I did draft as such in my user-space, still, no changes need to be made till more fruitful discussion develops, my work is offered since this page, a guideline, does a good job, but needs tweaking, and considering also, WP:Words to avoid. A rewrite, substantial, yet not changing any policy/guideline inflections, just shorter, clarified. This would take helpful input to achieve. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've already started a re-write with your input in mind. The "Other problems" section is a tough nut to crack in this regard- I think the only way to simplify it would be to actually spread it out into a whole descriptive section rather than the current bullet point format (which is what currently forces the section into the paragraph-compressed-into-a-sentence-and-a-half style).
- As for actually checking past versions of the page - Nobody ever does. Nobody ever should, either. That's what being bold is about. --AceMyth 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Complaints
Marc Defant makes a good point. On the one hand, weasel words can convolute an article and completely destroy the credibility of an entry. But when used appopriately they serve an important function. There are few absolutes in life and many things are subject to interpretation, even concrete "facts." There are, IMHO, many occasions when the use of a weasel word phrase would be appropriate. Even when a topic has been empirically studied and expounded upon, there is more often than not (weasel word?), several possible conclusions. Asturnut (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page itself cite in order to avoid hypocrisy? Some people (me) would say that this page is written poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.86.97 (talk) 05:50, March 22, 2007 (UTC)
- You must be the umpteenth person to come along and say "ho-ho, this article should apply to itself". That this demand makes no sense at all seems to take a backseat to the potential of saying something witty. --AceMyth 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"Many mathematicians argue ...."
"A substantial minority of biologists believe that ..."
"A majority of academic sociologists find ..."
"The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here..."
Well, just from reading this talk page I can tell that last one is invalid, and there it is at the top of the neutrally-termed Weasel Words page; uncited and most obviously hypocritical. And from reading below, it seems there wasn't ever a vote taken to show this consensus. 155.94.62.221 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, by golly. This page seems to have become a favorite target for well-meaning new contributors. Why don't you go bother the people who've been working on WP:A and tell them there was never a vote to indicate the so-called "consensus" on it and the policy text is not cross-referenced? I'm sure they'll be thrilled. --AceMyth 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you see, it could have something to do with the fact that in this case wikipedia is going against the grain of hundreds of years of English usage. Look at any other encyclopedia and you'll find that these sorts of phrases are quite common there.
- And I have to say, as rhetorical counter-moves go, rolling your eyes and saying "We've all heard that before" is pretty weak. Maybe you hear the objection a lot because there's some truth to it? Maybe if enough people object to a style guide article it doesn't really deserve to be considered a "consensual guidline"?
- I am a research scientist (have been for 30 years) and have written numerous scientific papers including in the journal Nature. These so called weasel words are really the way scientists tell others that something may be plausible, but we do not have enough data to support the hypotheses. It is crucial not to be dogmatic in science, and these phrases help indicate to the reader that he/she should be cautious of the suggestion or hypothesis. I find it amusing that you would discourage the usage by putting up scary alerts. What else would you have the writer do - state it as fact or leave out alternative hypotheses? 75.104.198.217 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Marc Defant
[edit] Was there EVER a consensus-indicating vote on this guideline?
That is not to say that I disagree with the principles of this guideline, but as it is now, I have seen those principles horribly misapplied (as many of the comments on this page can attest to) such that I suspect that Wikipedia is made worse because of this guideline existing (in its current form).
If this guideline were to be rewritten in a much clearer and universally acceptable way that would establish consensus, then that is exactly how guidelines here are supposed to work. But people need to write the guideline in that consensus-based way before trying to enforce it. And in fact, precisely why demanding consensus is a good idea is because it makes sure that guidelines are well-written, and not like this unclear BS that we are all having to deal with now.
HalfDome 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes, jeneral rules for clarity end up getting written into specific guidelines, so it gets too hard for newbies to handle, and they try, anyway. Sometimes, being too specific with examples causes other problems. That's a matter for orienteering, welcoming, and organizers to judge and inform. BrewJay (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's odd. This guideline has always struck me as pretty obviously a good idea. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if anything we should be having a discussion about this, not a poll. I mean, what kind of argument could possibly be made against this guideline that wouldn't also compromise WP:A and WP:NPOV? --AceMyth 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You are exactly right about needing a discussion for this. Wikipedia is based around building consensus through discussion, and thus far there has been nothing to indicate that such a consensus-building discussion took place, and, moreover, the poll that did take place indicated considerable disagreement about this guideline. As best as I can determine so far, some individuals just imposed this guideline on Wikipedia without building consensus first, and as you can note if you read through the comments below, it has resulted in all sorts of problems for editors (even though in principle and on the surface it may seem like an "obviously" good idea -- in current practice and in its current details it is much more problematic).
At some point I will get around to challenging the enforcability of this guideline that was established so counter to standard Wikipedia procedure. But no time at the moment...
HalfDome 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's odd. This guideline has always struck me as pretty obviously a good idea.
- Oh well, that settles it then.
- At any rate, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if anything we should be having a discussion about this, not a poll.
- Because if you discuss it long enough, the opposition gets tired and wanders away, and then you can declare victory.
- Well, you might try looking through the aforementioned archives, and it just could be you'll find some.
- Here's another for you. Starting with the "attribution" guidline, you will (at present) see the line Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Keeping that in mind, once again consider the example "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest novel." It may indeed be possible to provide references to this, but it's unlikely to be challenged by anyone who knows anything about literature, so what would be the point of doing it? One of the problems with this "avoid weasel words" guideline is that it empowers the ignorant to dive into an article on a subject they know nothing about, and dispute a line like this because it uses one of the Forbidden Phrases. This kind of activity is very little more than busy work, it has nothing to do with writing better articles. -- Doom (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's still an opinion about literature. What makes it Tolstoy's greatest novel? You see, now you're in the faculty of arts, so theoretically, if you hav the time and space to compare it with all of his other novels, then you can prove it using premises that are easy to accept and explain. Do you accept someone else's proof? Is it on the web? That'll save you a lot of thought and bother. Write it first as a fact.
- "War and Peace" is Tolstoy's greatest novel.
- When someone challenges you, then either you'll find someone's poll of Tolstoy specialiststs who determined the same thing, or you'll find someone's comparisons, or you'll end up doing the comparisons yourself. That someone who challenged you would be a foil to check your facts. Off hand, I would say that the topic isn't encyclopedic, because it demands too much detailed demonstration, and yet I hav no idea how terse and certain such a demonstration might be. Only the last option has a problem with WP:NOR, so you'll hav to explain it to another wikipedian, IOW, your foil, who accepts your publisher. BrewJay (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- NO. Under no circumstances should you assert that "War and Peace is Tolstoy's greatest novel" as a fact, because it is not a fact, and cannot be supported as one. It is on the other hand, true that it is "widely regarded" as one -- nearly anyone who knows anything about the subject would agree with the statement that it is "widely regarded" as greatest (though a few might state that they prefer "Anna Karenina", etc). The question at hand has to do entirely with whether the vague attribution to a consensus of experts is somehow slimey and underhanded ("weasely") or merely a short-hand, skipping an issue that isn't really that interesting -- the reason you might have trouble finding something like a survey of opinion of Tolstoy experts on this point is that none of them care to work on anything quite that inane. It's like asking a meterologist for a reference proving that the sky is blue -- their first thought will be "who let in this nut?"
- My point here is that being challenged on something like this is completely silly -- your "foil" in this case is either playing quasi-legalistic gotcha games or is some sort of philosophical extremist (some people think you can't talk about "greatness" if you don't have a greatness-meter). -- Doom (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A straw poll is under way, now. There is one neutral vote. All others are on one side. BrewJay (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I am placing this comment at the top here, but please note that I think this is a highly important matter for this guideline. As Doom points out just below this, the vote on whether the guideline was a good idea was very much divided (34 for, 24 against) and cannot be considered to indicate a consensus. So, I am wondering, was there ever a vote that established consensus for this guideline?
I've spent the past hour or so skimming through the history of the guideline and many times there were statements at the top of guideline saying things like "This guideline is disputed. See the talk page." Those comment were removed (by the original poster of this guideline, among at least one other) with essentially nothing in the edit summaries explaining why.
As best as I can tell, this guideline has always been controversial, a true consensus on it has never been established; as such, it cannot technically be considered a guideline nor part of the manual of style and would accordingly become unenforcable.
- Few policies, other than the blatantly obvious vandalism and spamming, are strictly and easily enforcable under penalty of being blocked. It must be that way. In measure, everyone who spends a lot of time editing has also had a policy stuck in their face so many times that they've resented it. Right now, with the examples, if a lot of people are looking for compliance problems with this guideline, that's exactly what's happening to some newbies. Hopefully, some will see the wisdom in it, too, and see that this guideline promotes clarity, even if it is over-applied, mis-applied, or misunderstood. All three of those things are likely to happen. This policy doesn't mean that a fact is wrong. I means that it doesn't belong here. OR it means that it should be made definite. BrewJay (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I am not a "newbie" who resented being accused of weaseling... I read this "guidline" first, long before people started tossing weasel tags around, and I've always had problems with it.
- Further, I submit that the people who wrote this guideline, and the people who advocate it, are the real "newbies": they're newbies at the use of English language. I suggest that there's a somewhat arrogant notion underlying all of this: the new generation of rough-and-ready internet nerds are going to put things on a firmer basis than all those hosers at the Britannica. -- Doom (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Template Amendment
Voter1 Voter2 Voter3 Concrete Terms: U U U Notability: U U U Neutrality: U U U Contains Equivocation: U U U Audio: U U U Suck or Draw: U U U Terse: U U U
To enter a position, please replase a "U", meaning undecided, with either an "A", meaning abstain, a "Y" meaning yes, or an "N" meaning no. The suck or draw question revolves upon one word in the audio that could be changed to "draw", so it should be either "D", "S", or "A". Identifying yourself at the top of a column of answers is optional, and it will aid in ascertaining that there were no multiple entries from the same person.
- I can't even understand the instructions on how we're supposed to vote on this, but no, this template change is terrible. The existing phrasing treats "weasel words" as a warning sign, the proposed alternate makes a flat accusation that the text is worthless. This wording is far too strong, much as I appreciate the attempt at dropping the pejorative "weasel". -- Doom (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Archives
- I recommend looking into this "Archive" myself, there are two things you might notice immediately about it: (1) when a vote was taken on whether the article was really a good idea, it roughly split in half, and (2) ESP feels that it's now an "established part" of wikipedia. This is not anything like "consensus", this is more like one determined person avoiding changes to their personal territory. -- Doom 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I took a look at this archive. I didn't encounter any serious discussion about whether "avoiding weasel words" was a good idea, but I did encounter your proposal Wikipedia:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution and ESP dropping into the discussion page to announce that AWW was already an established part of Wikipedia so you should take your proposal and go away. I bet that sucked.
- I still think that this is a good guideline, though. For all this defending of personal territory, I have stumbled upon this page a few months ago and brutalised it with edits, with most edits having remained intact since, so it's not like AWW has been doomed to stagnation. I think it reflects a common pitfall in writing that often tempts people to take advantage of it and push POV, and that it's very useful to have a clear term and guideline to call it out. But I'm not representative of anything, so if you think there should be a discussion about this go ahead and open one. Just make sure to make a decent effort to spread the word so we don't end up with fifteen people going "for" and "against", because that isn't representative of anything, either. --AceMyth 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I bet that sucked. Sure. That wasn't the only instance of it either: my first tries were hacking on the "avoid weasel words" page itself: all edits instantly reverted by User:EvanProdromou (who in those days went by his initials, "ESP"). Your edits have no doubt been more stable for a number of reasons (not the least of which is that "ESP" has wandered away), and the current version of this article is somewhat improved (I'm happy to see that the list of Forbidden Phrases has gone away). I've still got major problems with it, and I suspect that it's essentially ill-conceived, however well-intentioned. I do understand that some people hide POV by using vague references: just because an idiom can be misused, doesn't mean it should be prohibited. -- Doom (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Weasel-inline" tag now reads "Attribution needed"?
This makes things confusing when one is trying to point to a weasel word or phrase that is not looking for a source to be attributed to (e.g. "probably", "most likely", "usually" et al).
71.241.83.238 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- This has apparently been fixed. DO NOT MERGE weasel words with attribution needed!!! 68.101.130.214 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pejorative Term
I had not seen much discussion of this, so I thought I might introduce a subsection.
The phrase "weasel words" is inherently pejorative, in most english-speaking societies, and this connotation is seldom unintended when one denounces the text of an absent author to a present audience. I would suggest finding a more suitable term.
While some contributors and editors of the Wikipedia may, in truth, make intentional use of ambiguous language - be it due to personal bias, in order to gloss over gaps in knowledge or intellectual rigor, or out of stylistic habit; to sound a little more 'encyclopedia-like', in bad faith, or due to the pure evil of their utterly twisted and irredeemable character - I suspect that in the great majority of cases, ambiguous language appears in the Wikipedia unintentionally. Furthermore, I suspect that it is often beside the point, when not impossible, to attempt to demonstrate that a given ambiguity was or wasn't used intentionally.
Unfortunately, to say that a fellow editor's work is using "weasel words" is to accuse him of adding to or editing the wikipedia in bad faith. Given that actual weasels do not use words, it is very difficult to escape the notion that the original, insulting connotation is intended. It is difficult enough to feel that any criticism of one's work is made in good faith; when such criticism is in the form of an accusation of bad faith on one's own part, it seems to me remarkably predictable that disputes and bad feelings would frequently arise. And human nature is such that many hearts bearing animus would absolutely delight in expressing it in a manner that evaded direct reproach and censure - by finding and thus labelling ambiguous usages, for instance - which surely complicates the matter.
In my opinion, a community cannot 're-brand' a phrase without either failing, or intensifying the degree of any 'insider' vs. 'outsider' effect. Thus I do not believe that an attempt to explain that the phrase "weasel words" somehow 'means' something different in the Wikipedia would be particularly fruitful in a tasty-fruit sort of way.
69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are absolutely right. The expression "weasel word" is indeed pejorative, and unfortunately for that reason may be invoked incorrectly in cases such as generalizations or the passive voice, to name just two. Perhaps you might look at weasel word and see whether that article supplies some answers (or indeed you might contribute to it to improve it). Dieter Simon (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, is there a corresponding "this article needs a more focused writing style" tag? Something more specific than "cleanup" and less loaded than "WW". Some of the WW cases would still apply, though not all: There really is a difference between "Most apples are red" and "Most religious zealots are hypocrites". Notice that the project page's 1st para. says, "the problem is that [WW] are chosen to imply something which they do not say" [emph. added]. This attributed motive seems to define "WW". That's why accusing someone of WW is (justly) pejorative. That motive is probably absent in the apples example, even though it uses the same example word and the same syntax as the zealots example. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- There does not appear to be an alternative term. If there were, I imagine this discussion would have arisen quite promptly: requiring the editor to choose between imputing a motive, or not, rather highlights the pejorative interpretation of 'weasel words'; it become explicit and unavoidable.
- For me, the question would be whether the pejorative aspect of the term really contributes anything of value, regardless of how weaselly the words are. I think that the essay Don't "call a spade a spade" and the Dealing with bad faith section of the Assume good faith guideline page argue that it does not. The About good faith section of that guideline explicitly opines that: "[i]t is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious."
- Just to be clear, I think that the existence of the page Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is fine. We should all seek to avoid using weasel words. What I'm thinking about are the consequences of taking the phrase (in a tag, for instance) and applying it to another person's contribution. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
<-- I was bold. Please continue this discussion, and update the project page as necessary, if the wording introduced with this edit still needs work. I hope it addresses the concerns expressed here, which i read through before editing. Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel word
We should not forget there is a mainspace article Weasel word. Please try make that the main article rather than this much too prescriptive, regimentative and intrusive project page. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed it the other day. My first reaction was "oh great, the disease is spreading": The term "weasel words" is essentially a piece of jargon made up by Evan Prodromou: it's a very specific meaning, a new definition attached to a piece of common slang. It did not exist before he made it up, and now it deserves a wikipedia entry? Can I write some articles about terms that I've made up? (How about if I write articles about terms a friend of mine made up?). -- Doom (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe this will make what I mean a little clearer: when someone who is not a "wikipedian" says "weasel words" they're talking about a wide range of idioms:
- This article is really about avoiding "vague attribution", which is at best a small sub-set of things that might be termed "weasel words". -- Doom (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I just looked at the mainspace article Weasel word again, and it's much better than I thought at first glance -- it's certainly not just using "weasel word" as a pejorative synonym for "vague attribution". -- Doom (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel words in source
What happens if the source says things like, "Some people think X"? In that case, is it acceptable to write, "Some people think X" in a Wikipedia article? Should I write, "According to Y, some people think X," where Y is the author of the source? Q0 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends whether the source is a 'reliable source'. If a distinguished professor in the subject reckons "some people think" something, he is probably more trustworthy than an anonymous Wikipedia editor. It would still be better to find another source though! Cop 663 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you have to take a hard look at the statement on its own merits, and in its own context, and largely treat them with the same distrust you would any weasel-like words. The key problem here is when a statement is qualified in such a way that it seems to say more than it actually does. Take the case of the Apiloca people of Borneo.
- If the Distinguished Professor is saying something like "some Apiloca fear Cameras," he hasn't really said something any more informative, true or untrue than if anyone had said it. For, surely, some Distinguished Professors fear Cameras, as well.
- If what he is saying is that "many Apiloca fear Cameras," then that is perhaps more informative, but not as informative as it seems. We have no idea how many Apiloca he considers to be 'many'. (Nor, for that matter, any understanding of the degree or significance of the fear.)
- If he has been banned from ever returning to Borneo by a million-signature petition, than perhaps it is a large majority of the Apiloca. On the other hand, if he is a specialist in the phobias of the peoples of Borneo, then it could be a peculiar theme amongst those Apiloca who suffer from anxiety disorders.
- What he is offering is not a fact, but a characterization; this can certainly inform our beliefs, but it is very important that it not be treated as a fact, or taken out of context.
- So, in other words, I think it would be very important to directly mention the source and context.
- "In his book, 'How I Lost Ten Thousand Dollars Worth of The University's Camera Equipment', the Distinguished Professor claims that that many of the Apiloca fear Cameras, a view shared by Tourist, the author of 'Well They Took Away My Polaroids, Didn't They'."
- — 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's any different coming from an authority. Weasel words are fuzzy statistics.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
--Attributed to Mark Twain, but he didn't write it if he said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewhaha@edmc.net (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It is of mild interest that the DP has observed a form of behaviour that he/she has interpreted as fear on the part of the Apiloca when confronted by cameras. It would, however, be more interesting, and something that one would normally expect from a university academic, to find out why the Apiloca fear cameras. In this way the DP might be able to establish to his/her satisfaction whether he/she has correctly interpreted the reaction, and this might just put the statement in a category other than that of "opinion", which seems to be largely, as far as I can see, what "weasel word" means Pamour (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] square
i love the 'square' part of this article, i really do. f**king hilarious :D keep up the good work wikipedians, haha :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.34.211.145 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The greatest team in the world
This statement about the yankees seems is not objective by any measure. There is no universally accepted standard for deeming a team "the greatest in the world". While I did not remove it, I believe it should be removed. 74.47.21.87 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with this statement and have in fact made the change. Ronark (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Award-Winning"
It seems like half the articles that are about musicians, and far too many other artists and entertainers, start off their articles with "award-winning" before their job title. This may be true, but I always roll my eyes. Of course it's fans who originate articles about musicians, if not the musicians themselves. And of course they want to elevate themselves with some kind of modifier before their job title.
Naturally the awards can be documented, but the content is irrelevant. Generally anyone who meets the notability guidelines will have won some award somewhere that can be documented. It's nearly comparable to calling them a "food-eating" person. At any rate it's not encyclopedic, it's more like something you hear talk show host say and so I submit that "award-winning" is a weasel word.
Of course where major awards can be documented, they deserve a mention, but in the opening sentence "award-winning" reads like "really great!" Youdontsmellbad (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is classed as a 'peacock term' (although this overlaps with weasel words). See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms - "award-winning" has already been mentioned at least once in its discussion page. I think any word construction like this (present participle adjectives) can be misleading. "Award-winning actor" implies that the actor 'wins awards' (continuous tense), when it fact it is usually used for an actor who has, at some time, won at least one award.Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Terms like "Nobel Prize-winning" and "Academy Award-winning" are fair enough - they immediately convey specifically what they mean. But the definition of "award" is sufficiently vague that "award-winning" alone could mean pretty much anything & so is rather a leading statement. So actually I will agree with you that this is a weasel word (as well as a peacock term!). Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Cartoon
That cartoon (a picture of a weasel saying "some people say weasel words are great"), is a great example of what a lot of us have been complaining about all along: "weasel" is a pejorative, and accusing someone of "using weasel words" is essentially the same as calling them a weasel. -- Doom (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- The illustration was removed from this article by an unregistered user with no explanation. I have restored it. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree. It illustrates the topic of weasel words. Also it is attractive & fun. That does not automatically make it bad content. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I rather like that image. It gets the point across, and it's just slightly funny, but without being very childish. Also, the page it was on is a style guideline, not an article - so for the writers, not the readers. Therefore, I think we can afford a little bit of fun without feeling that we're lowering the level of seriousness that we should have here. Stratford490 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Image restored. The contention that it is "childish and lowers the level of quality and seriousness" is entirely POV & may not reflect the prevalent views of the Wikipedia community. There are plenty of other examples of humour in WP project pages (eg. wp:beans). Please don't remove the pic again without discussing first, since other members oppose its removal. It may later be removed if consensus goes that way, but until then it is easier for us to discuss it while we can all see the picture. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The image is great, and it is perfectly consistent with the aims of a "serious" project. Serious does not have to mean stodgy. Countless people have effectively communicated "serious" ideas through wit and humour. (That's the whole idea behind political cartoons--well, depending on how "seriously" one takes politics.) The image illustrates a point, and it puts a smile on the reader's face. Nothing "childish" about that at all. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the cartoon does anything to illuminate the concept -- wouldn't a new reader just find it confusing? I'd be interested in seeing some examples of humor used to effectively explain something here on wikipedia. My bet would be that jokes tend to get deleted. -- Doom (talk)
[edit] "Assume"
In some cases, it might fit under the
tag. In other cases, like in mathematics, it can be necessary to state your assumptions. Even in history, documenting assumptions is not necessarily a bad thing. How safe are those assumptions? But, if it comes to a war of assumptions or something like that, then I would snip the premise, the material, and the conclusions as being part of an argument that really belongs on a talk page or a newsgroup. BrewJay (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to get a third (and fourth and so on) opinion on whether the use of word "assume" in attribution is weasely (as I believe) or not ("historrian x assumes that..."). Diff.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that that is more relevant to Wikipedia:Words to Avoid than to Weasel Words. See the first line of this project page: "Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement". That is not analagous to the example you have given, where "assume" is the primary verb of the sentence. Weasel words are phrases that can usually be removed entirely from a sentence (although it is often beneficial to either rephrase them more neutrally or to cite evidence). "Assume" could contribute to a weaselly phrase, such as "It is generally assumed that -". However, when used in most contexts it is not a weasel word as such.
- Have a look through the Words to Avoid article, as it discusses the hazards of using slightly slanted verbs like "claim", "admit", etc. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding acceptable use of "assume", it really depends on whether it can be qualified with evidence or citation. E.g. "historian X assumes that -" may be OK if that historian has used phrases like "from the evidence we can assume that -" or has otherwise made it clear that he is making assumptions (which should be noted in the article). Less responsibly, using "assume" without justifying it may be rather biased editing. It's often better to replace it with neutral wording like "historian X asserts that -", but I don't think that "assume" is necessarily always a bad word. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since I'm involved in to this dispute I need to say my arguments: I do have the book on hand, and despite several attributes of seemingly citation, like quotation marks, historian does not support his statement with any references, that would support his rather emotional suggestion (forced re-Lithuanization in this exact case). I'd like to hear how to deal with that kind of sources, and how to describe them properly as being somewhat murky. Thank you in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- What you see as "unevidenced as emotional" I see as well referenced and neutral statement by an expert on the subject. Nonetheless I do note insist on language "proves, evidences, makes clear" or such. "States, notes" and such are perfectly reasonable, neutral formulations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Piotrus, I know your opinion, it wasn't you I was asking. Thank you for your input, but I'd like to hear a comment from uninvolved party.--Lokyz (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Without looking deeply into the actual debate, I would strongly advice against using word "assume"; we should not judge whether a historian is doing good or bad history. We can, however, look at the reliability of the sources. Are the books published by reputable publishers? Such matters are discussed at WP:RS/N. On the other hand, Piotr, the verb "notes" is equally biased, since one can only note what is true. Merzul (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the analysis. I will use state instead of note in the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- The word "assume" is frequently used to insinuated an unjustified assumption. Any sentence of the form "X assumes that Y, but really Z" is generally unjustified. Unless X themselves claim it is an assumption, it doesn't fly - if another author W claimed they were making an assumption, I would use "X asserts that Y, but W labels this an unwarranted assumption, claiming instead that Z". This feels more like a Word to Avoid to me. Dcoetzee 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I wrote a proof on radix sort that used the assumptions my authority based her conclusions on, leading to a context for optimal being met. To a compsci, they were elementary assumptions. To the rest of us I said, try it and see where it leads you...in what sounds like rhetorical opinion, and really isn't. So, assume can be a dangerous word, and how dangerous depends on your context and discipline. On another hand, I see that it's a charged word, even for me, so if you use it in a context where it's not a safe assumption, then someone is bound to make another assumption in your context and say...hah...and this has happened when the assumption failed truth. It is not a weasel word. BrewJay (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Should "controversial" be considered/listed as a weasel word?
I have been involved in several discussions where editors want to apply the word "controversial" to any concept or person they disgree with. My own opinion is that the word should rarely, if ever, appear in WP. I have come to think this because: The word casts doubt upon the veracity of the statement being described (often reflecting the view of the speaker/writer). There is rarely, if ever, an objective way of ascertaining whether something is controversial. Something can actually become controversial (or come to seem controversial) merely because someone says so. In my opinion, none of these situations is good for WP.
Thoughts?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's hard to define controversial on a planet with a flat earth society. At some point, someone's opinion has to go down the tubes, because it's too far out there. BrewJay (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC
Yes, that's my point exactly. The word conveys no real information for the reader; it merely conveys attitude from the writer. "Controversial" seems (to me) to have every quality of a weasel word.
How would this be best pointed out on the weasel word page?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] #Redirect from Anonymous authority hmmm. case history?
Anonymous authority is a philosophical term for a wikipedia policy. In both cases, authors are finding support in undocumented or unpublished case histories. IOW, you are an authority on what works for you. You are not an authority on what most people do. Much of Freud's work is analysis of case history. It's usable material, but in some form, it must be published before you can use it. In case histories, it's Freud who is an exemplary authority, not his patients, so there really isn't such a thing as an anonymous authority. Avoid weasel words. Please reinstall my redirection to this policy, because it's the best answer unless case history exists, and it probably does. I see that it doesn't. Go figure.
I looked around at anecdotal evidence and related logic, and I find that authority is itself in the category of logical fallacy under appeals, but only in the case where it's used as a proof (something that really only exists in mathematics) or an authority is held to be infallible. BrewJay (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I hope that addresses most concerns.
I put the verb form of the American Heritage dictionary definition in, along with a clause showing why violations of this policy are probably in good faith. I took some of the examples from what was intended to be a contrasting essay on this policy. I see now that an effort began in the first comments to tersen this article (remove examples), and a lot of ways are to equivocate. If you think that this article can do without examples, then feel free to delete them, but I think that's what makes it superior to weasel words as an article. Perhaps these bad examples should also be improved, like wikipedia:embrace weasel words did, and, in one step. I've addressed about as many concerns as I can. I could copy a template and rewrite the policy declaration with an article reference to hearsay to avoid a self-referential contradiction, but I don't think it's worth the trouble. Read a grain of salt into everything. BrewJay (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Problem of definition
In my experience this is among the most misunderstood and so most frequently mis-invoked policies or guidelines in WP - indeed it seems to be overtaking WP:NPOV in this respect. One reason is that the page seems nowhere actually to state that it covers matters of opinion, belief or interpretation rather than simple matters of fact. The statement "some horses are black and some are brown" is not weasel words, but there are plenty out there who will claim it is. The page should make this clear in the first para. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- "There are plenty out there who will claim it is", is in and of itself a weasel-worded statement. ;-) If there is widespread evidence of people misinterpreting this guideline, let's have a look at specific incidents in more detail and see if there's a pattern. A wording tweak may be of help.
- But, let's look at the example you provided. A simple rewrite in less ambiguous language would be a good resolution: "Common colours of horses include black and brown." The problem with words like "some", "many", "few", is that they are inherently and intentionally vague measurements; as an encyclopedia, we want to aim to be precise, not vague. Editors will rightly look at a sentence with vague measurements and want to see them rewritten. Can we provide sourced statistics? Can we replace it with simple, widely-accepted statements of fact that pass WP:V and don't use these terms of vague measurement? Pointing to WP:WEASEL whenever terms of vague measurement are used in an article may not always be precisely correct, but the spirit of good encyclopedia-writing is still there, and shoudln't be discouraged. Warren -talk- 18:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:V is of course a different issue. There is no significant gain in either precision or lack of ambiguity in your version; "common" is just as weasely as "some". Look at Talk:Dormition of the Theotokos for one current example. If the purpose of this guideline is intended to be to outlaw "some" etc, then it really does need a total rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- The article you've referred to here does have problems with weasel-wording. The "Some Catholics agree with the Orthodox that this happened after Mary's death, while some hold that she did not experience death" is exactly the sort of prose that the WP:WEASEL guidelines warn against. Who are these people that are talked about? Who are the significant proponents of each view, if there are any? Do we have studies or other statistics we can use to define the sizes of the groups of people with these opinions more precisely? Verifiability is absolutely the issue here, and User:Thomaq was quite right to point out that the article is failing to provide verification for sources where contentious statements are being made, and that it's words like "some" that are highlighting the need for this.
- Let me be very clear about this: The issue isn't the word "some" in and of itself, but it is usually symptomatic of a deeper problem. Warren -talk- 22:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tedious wording vs. weasel words
Take the following statement:
"Critics have questionned the notion that preagricultural hunter-gatherers would have generally consumed a low-carbohydrate and high-protein diet."
Does the "weasel words" guideline require changing this sentence as follows:
"M.P. Richards, Katharine Milton, Marion Nestle, A. Ströhle ,A. Hahn, S.M. Garn, W.R. Leonard and Sara Elton have questionned the notion that preagricultural hunter-gatherers would have generally consumed a low-carbohydrate and high-protein diet."
Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- A mention of at least some of these, preferably in citations to works where they do the questioning, would be needed, yes. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is the lead sentence of a paragragh, which is supposed to be a summary of the paragraph. The detailed criticisms are metioned and attributed in the following sentences. See Paleolithic diet#Anthropological evidence.
- The form is: "Critics say "XYZ..." (Summary). A says X. B says Y. C says Z. D says..." This sort of paragraph structure seems clear to me, despite the first sentence employing weasel words. Many thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should be clarified to take the above considerations into account. In my opinion, "weasel words" are perfectly acceptable when used in sentences that serve to summarise information that is subsequently detailed and attributed to specific studies and/or researchers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to edit the article accordingly if nobody disagrees. Weasel words are perfectly fine when the context is sufficiently clear as explained above. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bot
User:AlexNewArtBot/CleanupSearchResult picks up new articles loaded with undesirable words. Colchicum (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Avoid stoat words too
(n/t) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.253.159 (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] recent insertion
"When referencing the subject of a particular study, it is not necessary to identify the individual participants. For example,..."
I have no idea what on earth this means. Nor will most other editors. It contains a number of MoS breaches, too (spaced minus sign, ellipsis dots with comma). Tony (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really understand your objection. Is the problem with the snippet that you quoted? or the MoS issues that you cite? Sorry if I took the example from the featured article 0.999..., which is in mathematics (my own field). Perhaps I should have considered a more generic example, such as:
- "Some of the students surveyed indicated a preference towards neither candidate."
- -siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I like your point, but I think it's more general than that. I tried: "This guideline doesn't apply if your source backs you up: that is, the source identifies a person or group and says that they actually said or wrote what you claim. But see WP:UNDUE for policy regarding how much weight to give any one person or group." Does this cover it?
- On another point: I deleted the first and third of those "clear exceptions"; the first said that anything any guide says is okay, which can't be right, and the third infringed on WP:V's territory. I skimmed the talk page, and didn't see anyone arguing for those, but if I missed something, please let me know. While reading the talk page, I saw some confusion, and I think I might try to get some changes in before the next monthly update. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the essence of it. It would still benefit from an example. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Any case where an editor is reporting that a source identifies a person or people and says they said or wrote something is not WEASELy; if it's a problem, it's undue weight. If we were writing a style guideline like Chicago, we could create a list of 5 or 10 examples, just to make sure we're not misunderstood. The problem with doing that in an NPOV-flavored style guideline is that a list like that won't be left alone; they'll want to make sure their favorite case is covered and their least-favorite case is not covered. Bottom line: I'm fine with an example or two if what I said can't be understood without the examples. Can you think of a sentence where it's hard to figure out whether the first sentence in this paragraph applies or not? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the thrust of these changes, but am not sure they are right yet. "These people believe the earth is flat" (if they are then named & refed) is clearly outside the scope of Weasel, isn't it? There are different issues with the statement (historically in fact dubious - see Flat earth hypothesis) "In the Middle Ages, most people believed the earth was flat". That is within the scope, and should not be rephrased, but the "most" needs referencing. Currently the silliest thing in the page seems to me to be ("Improving ..." section)": "Simply removing words like "some", "most", "many", "may", "some kind of", or "can" will strengthen any statement. Is it still correct? If not, then is that acceptable in a field like Physics or Chemistry? No. Psychology or Sociology? Probability of Significance=.95 (spell it out). If it's important to say, then where are the numbers?" The first sentence is plainly nonsense - try it on the flat earth examples. Can we agree to remove this? Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
←Reading this page made my fingers itch; "Don't make non-falsifiable statements" would cover a lot of this stuff, and more succinctly. But my instinct is that those of us who value the process here more than the outcome should exercise a very light touch; otherwise we interfere with the primary purpose of the style guidelines, which is to record and represent the views and conflicts and results of that conflict for all Wikipedians. I like what you're saying, John; as far as I'm concerned, you can rewrite the whole page (starting with the title; drive-by edit summaries invoking WP:WEASEL violations set the wrong tone, in my view; maybe "Avoid fuzzy words"? But that's a little broader). But please divide things into two piles; the stuff that is already covered on policy pages such as WP:V, WT:V, WP:NPOV, WT:NPOV, etc should be tossed or moved to those pages and discussed there. For what's left, we should keep things more or less in line with the history of the actual conflicts and resolutions on this project page and talk page; otherwise we'll have to make an effort to solicit for opinions and make sure everyone is still happy with the results. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm sorry, which first sentence? Do you mean "Weasel words are small phrases attached..."? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- No I meant the first sentence quoted:"Simply removing words like "some", "most", "many", "may", "some kind of", or "can" will strengthen any statement". Tempting as it is to take up your offer, I think it is best to raise things first here, & certainly there are people who don't share my/our views about the page. But I'll see what I can come up with. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh right. Ugh. Kill it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can we also agree that the older:"This page in a nutshell: Avoid phrases such as "some people say" without sources" is better than the current:"This page in a nutshell: Avoid using fuzzy, estimated statistics and hearsay evidence such as "some people say"."? Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll just throw a few things out. One problem with the older infobox and with the current first sentence, implying that all we're talking about is "some people say", is that the phrase "weasel word" is actually defined in the dictionaries, for instance MWOS: "a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position". I'm a big fan of WP:NOTLEX and WP:JARGON; if a phrase already means something, we don't get to say it means something else, we have to make up a new phrase if we want a new meaning. So, I'd be happy with either of two directions: either we rename the page and say that it's about "some people say", or else keep the current name (or change it to "Evasive words") and focus the page on exactly what we mean by that. The sentence we just killed was not even close to being right, but it is true that those words, and others, should raise a flag on whether there's an intent to evade or to retreat into non-falsifiable statements. The history of both the project page and talk page show that people haven't settled on which of those two focuses this page is supposed to have. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but "fuzzy, estimated statistics" don't seem mentioned elsewhere in the page. I agree we need a clear definition of what we're talking about. "Some people say" & "critics allege" are often just a lack of referencing, which I think we agree doesn't need its own guideline. The examples at Weasel words don't seem great either. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- You make a good case; feel free to start changing things. I'll invite WT:GAN and WT:MOS people. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- This page is really an extension of WP:NPOV and to a lesser extent WP:NOR. Expanding WP:AWW to include a larger variety of propaganda techniques might be appropriate, though that would take a bit of work. The objective, as far as I can tell, is to have some sort of explicit instructions on specific NPOV problems. Weasel wording is the most common, though some comments on loaded language (much of which is now scattered through WP:WTA) might be worthwhile. I don't think this has to be a formal guideline since WP:NPOV is a policy. This is just a subset of that which is not NPOV. SDY (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but as Dank says, WP:V is very much part of it. Often the weasel words are created in an attempt to achieve NPOV without doing the work to get adequate referencing. I think nearly all the text now here is rather confused & confusing, & wonder how much really needs adding elsewhere. Yet just demoting this to an essay would I think have many opponents. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
←Btw I just self-reverted my addition of CAT:GEN. After giving notice at WT:MOS and WT:GAN, no one has shown up to defend anything on the page, so unless I get more evidence, I'm going to guess that this page doesn't have the kind of central position and broad-based support characteristic of the CAT:GEN subset of style guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, a confession: I just realized that now that I know that it's not appropriate for CAT:GEN, I'm not as interested in devoting time to the page. I'm not so much being slack, as committed to the idea that no one person should have a heavy footprint on guidelines pages in general, and I have a hard time stopping myself from inserting my opinion. I'll be happy to respond and support positions that seem reasonable if someone else wants to run with this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Demotion to essay
Okay, I'm bold-ishly demoting this to an essay. I notified WT:MOS and WT:GAN about the problems, and no one is sticking up for this page. A whole lot of work has been done at WP:V, WP:NPOV and related pages since this page was created, and per discussions above, most of the stuff on this page now seems to be covered by pages that get a whole lot more traffic than this one does. I know I just got finished saying that I wanted to exercise a light touch, and I still mean that; I think going through and trying to change everything to suit me, or to suit a few people, isn't the best way to proceed. Without more input, there's not a lot we can do to save this page IMO. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, as discussed above. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I watchlisted the page when it was mentioned at WP:GAN. Conversion to an essay seems like a sensible step to me. Geometry guy 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted this change. I'd like to see a much stronger justification than "policy pages have received work" before we go changing a very, very long-standing guideline into an essay. It has been considered a style guideline since early 2005, and was in fact a policy for a while before that.
- I saw it first as policy, and it hasn't fundamentally changed. I changed the nutshell to 'Avoid fuzzy, estimated statistics like "some people say"', which was an action in response to Ramir's trying to jeneralize the definition of weasel word. The article still stands for clarity, and now I see that it is specializing in things that people can apply, however mechanically. I don't understand why it would be demoted for work on articles that contain principles used to write this guideline. Those are policy. This is practice. BrewJay (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- The simple fact of the matter is that WP:WEASEL has been used for years as a way of promoting better prose by avoiding unsupportable, unquantifiable statements. It is one of a number of WP namespace articles that present a targeted, practical application of a policy. We need these sorts of pages, and we need these sorts of pages to have some weight behind it, so that we don't get a bunch of dumbasses coming along and saying, "That WEASEL page is just someone's opinion!" and then continue adding in poorly-written statements. Pages like this one appeal to editors' rationality in a way that a concise WP:V and WP:NPOV cannot do on their own. Working editors need pages like this one that they can point newcomers to and say, "see, this is why your contribution isn't going to work on Wikipedia", and have a full page with examples and philosophy so that the newcomer will be able to understand not only what they need to do to change their sytle, but why it's a good idea.
- Let me make this extremely clear: This is a style guideline, not a content guideline. It discusses how we write, not what we write. Warren -talk- 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Since very many weasel issues can and should be resolved by referencing, it is a content guideline too. The page is currently so vague & poorly written, lacking for a start any clear definition of what weasel words are (see above), that I for one think it is unsuitable for it to have any "official" status as it is. Time for a poll perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is an article about weasel words that goes to the coinage, and the definition in the nutshell, is a SUBSET of that definition -- things you can actually look for. The jeneral definition is fog, or vagueness. BrewJay (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- No polls please: they are unhelpful and divisive. If MoS wants to keep this as a style guideline, it needs to be reworked into a style guideline, not a mishmash of style and policy. The onus is on those who want to keep it as a style guideline to fix it. Geometry guy 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I support the demotion to an essay because debasing saying "some" or similar words to quantify an unknown number of people/whatever... surely above or below the half of the total is original research itself. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why do I get the impression some people don't read this article more than once before they hav a problem with it? The first thing you need to know about writing in an encyclopedia is that some things should not be written here that you could easily and should freely speak. BrewJay (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm glad to see among these comments that this was policy at some point, because that means I wasn't deluding myself when I was calling it that on template_talk:weasel.BrewJay (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
←Let's get a rhythm going on style guidelines issues; it's just as important to figure out how to handle conflict over style guidelines as it is to make improvements to this particular project page. I have questions:
- Are we agreed that we want to continue to point people to this page? Would anyone prefer to discourage use of the page even as a summary and a pointer? (For instance, see WP:ATT; it was demoted to an essay in July, but it's still a widely-used and valuable pointer to core content policy.)
- Are we agreed that there seems to be more interest in demoting than not? That's my initial guess; if we wanted to demote any page currently in CAT:GEN, and I made the same notifications, we'd have more than two people showing up voicing opposition. I'm not trying to predict the outcome of the debate; I'm trying to figure out how to proceed. I think I agree with G-Guy that, if it appears we have the !votes to demote, then it's reasonable to ask the people who want to not-demote to help out. Please at least get this page up to the quality of an essay, and pick out your 3 favorite sentences that you'd like to keep; that way, if the page is demoted, we'll know which parts are most important to work into other guideline and policy pages.
- How do we adjust our Wikipedian instincts to the reality that no two wikiprojects will ever agree on all style guidelines? The only tool we have is consensus, and that tool is guaranteed not to work well; professional English is hard and it varies among countries and even from one section of a newspaper to the next. That's why no one knows all the style guidelines, even though it's a matter of policy that guidelines can't be ignored, and why WP:V0.7 is about to go on sale at Walmart largely un-copyedited.
- How do we overcome the known downsides of working in a nonprofit environment? The fun stuff gets done, the boring stuff doesn't. Working on your own articles is fun, copyediting articles you don't have a connection to is boring. Promoting style guidelines you feel passionately about is fun; reviewing existing guidelines you don't care about to see if they've been superceded by later work is boring ... and also thankless, since every page will have at least a few champions. There's around 99% agreement with the statement that current style guidelines are not likely to be read and absorbed even by all the very active editors; there's an impression that they are too difficult and extensive and not sufficiently reflective of consensus. How much pruning do we have to do to get a much higher rate of "buy-in"?
- Is is okay to re-demote the page, as the best way to get more people to show up and complain about the demotion? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with "demoting" this to an essay. It's pejorative, often abused, and just an aspect of WP:V. Essays are great for explaining and exploring specific parts of the policies and guidelines, but shouldn't be treated like The Law, as this one often is. --Itub (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Re-demoted for the purpose of attracting attention (and potential workers!) to this page. On another subject: please see WT:WPMOS for discussion of improving and reducing the size of the style guidelines and getting more people involved. It's important, it's hard if you don't know the style guidelines (so please consider volunteering if you are somewhat familiar with them), and it's somewhat urgent because of WP:V0.7. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)
- Okay, I have put this back as style guide. This is a long standing part of the style guide and would require a much greater consensus (i.e. far more editors involved) to demote it. The biggest problem with Weasel (unlike WP:Peacock) is that quite a few people who come here to edit this page do not understand it so it drifts in quality with well meant but bad edits. As for the general copyediting issue tell me about it. I have just reviewed thousands of articles for the Schools Wikipedia, going through edit histories to try to find the best versions to include. There are plenty of people who copy-edit but plenty more who add badly written content. That isn't a problem with a style guideline its about people. This guide is critical to get people to understand "just because something is true you cannot definitely include it" and it has has the full force of a style guide for years so you cannot just take that off I am afraid. If you want to get a discuss on the topic take it to a community board.--BozMo talk 09:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Undone. It isn't a style guideline at the moment, but a mixture of form and content. Indeed your statement about its "just because something is true..." purpose reveals this basic problem. That has nothing to do with style: it is about WP:V and WP:NOR. Those that want to retain a style guideline on weasel words actually need to write one. Geometry guy 09:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't doubt sticky little fingers are all over the current text. What about a fairly deep revert? [1] with the added sentence "If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement." which is the only improvement on the current version? The page should match WP:PEACOCK. However please note that this is good precedent for insisting on better consensus for changing policy pages than a snapshot of the talk page. --BozMo talk 12:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was just reading some of the arguments on other style guidelines pages, and I realized that I went about this the wrong way by demoting first and asking for comments second; it can create an impression that I'm throwing my weight around. The right way to proceed is to make sure all the arguments are collected so everyone can see them, ask for responses, and then make any needed changes. In this particular case, the reaction is so strong in favor of demotion that I don't think I, or anyone, should un-demote for the time being, but I added a "caution" at the top to let people know that nothing has been decided and the discussion is still ongoing; I hope that helps.
- BozMo, you asked on my talk page about the relevance of WP 0.7. The answer is: we won't know for sure what the relevance is until the DVD is published; let's talk then. A lot of people are worried about having 30000 un-copyedited pages show up in Walmart as the official Wikipedia DVD, but we'll see. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't think in fact V1.0 is supposed to be more or less official than any other offline Wikipedia but I still don't see how the state of the style guide bears on the lack of copy-editing. The Wikipedia Schools DVD (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection )will probably always have more users than the Release Version (because it is free, and has a million user start) and there are evidentally lots of copy editors out there. Just far more tinkerers thats all. The style guides help copy editors versus SPAs and are indispensible. --BozMo talk 14:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Version 1.0 is an irresponsible mistake. It assumes, what FAC daily disproves, that we have a reliable system for evaluating articles; we do not. I hope it will be either largely harmless or provide a steady income for the Foundation; and it does keep a certain number of people who want titles away from article space.
- But, that being said, copyediting does require either an intelligible MOS or no MOS at all; the present system of dozens of small pages, most divided into bullet points, each point expressing the opinion of a cabal of a few editors, means that we have guidance on copyediting which most copyeditors don't know - and all too often guidance most copyeditors disagree with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with demoting this to essay; it should be a guideline. It should not be a style guideline, because it deals with content; it is, to my mind, a corollary of Neutrality and Verifiability together. But I believe it to be generally accepted, and something we should in general do; that's what makes a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't gotten a groundswell of agreement with my concerns about WP V0.7; let's assume, in fact let's hope, I'm wrong, and wait and see what happens. You asked on my talk page, BozMo; I'll answer there, and folks are welcome to join in. I've had a lot of requests to just stay focused on improving the style guidelines; sounds like a great plan.
- I want to second what G-Guy said above about polls; they're divisive. I want to add that style talk pages have a way of devolving into polls. A better way to go is the approach of WP:RfA Review, but there's a problem. After thousands of person-hours of work, they are almost at the point where people have something to discuss and !vote on. Here, we've got maybe a couple of orders of magnitude more work to do than that, if we want to get what passes for consensus on the content and status of every page related to style. (No one is forcing us to do that much work, but when we try to copyedit without being able to point to the reasons for edits, various bad things happen.) I haven't been successful in this latest round of requests at getting more people to help.
I can't do something like RfA Review for style by myself, obviously, so I'm going to have to cut corners: I'm going to make a list of issues, position and arguments for every style guideline page in my user space, and that will necessarily involve judgment calls. Worse, it's likely that the usual people will show up on style talk pages, point to what I'm doing, give that as a reason for supporting or opposing, and we will all, many times, be accused of being bullies and fascists who don't listen to reason. What fun. But you know, I'm just over worrying about this. There's work to be done. I'll start with this page some time today, and give a link. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. To be clear, I don't mean that all complaints about what I'm doing in my userspace will be unfair; many will be fair, and I'll let them all stand, fair or not. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: I'm putting everything else on hold while we work on copyediting the articles in the WP DVD before it shows up in stores. I don't disagree with Sept and BozMo that the general idea of this page is important, but as G-Guy pointed out, if you say we need this page because we need to let people know that not everything that's true belongs in WP, then what you're missing is that there were 3000 talk page messages in and around April alone, as I recall, at WT:V, on just that subject. Policy discussions have taken place and are taking place on policy talk pages; these are not things that can be decided at WT:WEASEL. It would be better to take the same approach that was taken at WP:ATT, and use this page as an essay that summarizes the "weasel" point of view on these subjects, but points to policy pages so that people can join the discussions on the pages where the relevant discussion is actually happening. I favor re-demotion to essay, but I'm un-watchlisting until the WP DVD is out the door. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Demoting this to an essay strikes me as a great idea. There is not, and never has been, any consensus about this as a "style guide" entry -- it's a little peculiar that it's advocates can't seem to grasp that point. -- Doom (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The whole article needs some references to reliable sources about scientific writing which back up the main claims made in it, especially in the "Variations" chapter. I am currently inclined to add a citation-needed-template at the start of the article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't an article, it is a guideline. Guidelines live or die on community consensus and should not have references --BozMo talk 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- That makes no immediate sense to me. Articles of any stripe become more understandable and stronger if they link to other articles for backup and explanation of terms. As a how-to on style, I'll understand if this article is self-contained, and that's exactly the recurring criticism of the intro: "generally accepted by a majority of editors". Who? How long? Which categories? What percentage have actually seen it? As the version that attacks vagueness in jeneral, though, it's very convenient to link it to historical documents on the topic as discussed in court rooms. No hearsay. BrewJay (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
As it currently is ( link ), this is just about as confusing as it could possibly be. On the one hand, it's got a guideline banner. OTOH, someone edited the Nutshell box into something which not summarize the policy, but to detail it's current status ("Was a guideline.") I may be bold tonight and revert the Nutshell box to actually summarize the essay/guideline/whatever to say something different. It is HARD for an editor who doesn't care about the debate drama, but does care about following guidelines, to determine its current status as it is. And to apply it, also.
At any rate, PLEASE keep in mind that this is a widely hit, and used, piece of project space. And most of us who hit it really don't care WHAT it says, as long as it can be read/classified/applied in quick fashion to our editing of other articles. Maybe a MASSIVE revert is needed, IMVVHO. LaughingVulcan 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- You say "most of us who hit it really don't care WHAT it says, as long as it can be read/classified/applied in quick fashion to our editing of other articles" - which is EXACTLY the problem! What does it say in a nutshell? Most of us who have spent time looking at it are not at all sure. Might I suggest you reconsider drive-by tagging in the style you describe. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- You have something of a point, which is one reason I didn't just do it this morning.
- The nutshell box as it is right now provides nothing but noise in the signal-to-noise ratio as suggested at Template:Nutshell. To me, right now, it says, "This isn't a guideline. Go somewhere else."
- As to content of the box, the version of 1 June 2008 of the nutshell box is clear. "This page in a nutshell: Avoid using phrases such as "some people say" without providing sources." That version is the same as what was present 1 January 2008. That version is the same as what was present 31 May 2007. I'd say that's more than good enough to give me an indicator of what this policy/guideline/essay/whatever is about. That summarizes the current state of the rest of the content. Saying what its status is does not help the Editor to understand what this policy/guideline/essay/whatever is about.
- As to drive-by tagging... I've read the essay WP:TAGGING, and generally agree with its' principles. But that wasn't what drew me here. As I was reading an Article I came by something that I wasn't sure if it was a use of weasel words or not. So I left a messsage on the Talk page, for discussion, soliciting opinions before being bold. I asked, "Does, "word," strike anyone as weasel-y?" Since I thought I have a good bead on what that means, I hit Save. Now, it's been awhile since I've checked this Guideline. So I hit it, and find a very funny illustration that is new and interesting. Then I see a box saying it's a Guideline. And I see that the nutshell telling me this policy/guideline/essay/whatever is now an essay, but doesn't tell me what it is about. And I went, "WTF?"
- My point in quick and efficient application is that an Editor should be able to come here, briefly read the page, and then know what to do. It used to do that for me. The text of the guideline still does. So just how did the nutshell box break? 'Cause it sure looks broken from where I'm reading it, and it was not before.
- I'm not saying it isn't important to clarify the status of this project page. But the nutshell box is the wrong place to do it in. And it doesn't help the Editor passing by to understand the content. And FTR, the guideline seemed remarkably clear to me the first time I saw it back in '06. It still does. Maybe that's the problem with me: I don't see what's wrong with it being a guideline. But I know that the nutshell should summarize the content, not the status.
- But, were I to fix the Nutshell box as it is, given the article content, I'd revert it back to the way it was for (apparently) over one year. That is better than, "This used to be a guideline. Now it's an essay. Run along and go play." LaughingVulcan 01:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deep revert?
Any comments on a deep revert to when the format matched WP:PEACOCK? Specifically as above [2] with the added sentence "If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement." which is the only improvement on the current version? --BozMo talk 12:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Probably better than what is there now, but "...If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider referencing or removing the statement." would be much better. This is one of the core problems with this page, in all versions: it purports to deal with statements that cannot be referenced, but in practice it is very often, perhaps most often, cited in connection with statements that could be referenced, but have not been. I for one don't really want to encourage weasel-hunters to go around removing stuff without tagging and waiting (see, on a similar issue, the discussion on the just-failed WP:Burden of proof - well I can't find the link for that - anyone?). Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can't support that version as a guideline, either, BozMo. I totally understand the temptation to skip all those messy policy discussions and give a simplified, neat presentation. No one wants to have to read that much crap. But we must resist the urge to skip the real discussion and give people an alternative discussion; WT:NPOV, WT:OR and WT:V tell the real story, not this page. The reason this page got started was that they didn't tell the story back then. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am interested in your views on WP:Peacock then. The essential content could be anywhere but this guideline is mainly about style not content. --BozMo talk 05:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- My view on PEACOCK is that most editors get the concept that words like "fantastic" are probably bad in article-space unless you're representing what someone else thinks, and making a long list of such words doesn't create the same problem that you get at WP:Words to avoid and on this page. That is, any kind of long list of examples in style guidelines tends to invite edits as people insert examples that support their favorite articles and delete examples that contradict them, so these kinds of lists are frowned on. We're more or less stuck with WP:Words to avoid, although IMO it should be a lot shorter. PEACOCK doesn't seem to be a problem because there's only one concept represented, and there are only so many ways you can say it. On this page, I think the general rule applies. For instance, "some" can be a weasel word. We shouldn't try to define here exactly when "some" is okay and when it's not; that depends on how it's being used, and the larger Wikipedia community has been extremely vocal on these topics (see next section). I wouldn't mind keeping this page as a much shorter essay, with a list of potential weasel words, and advice to see the core content pages to see how they should and shouldn't be used. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A shorter explanation
This is my opinion of a shorter explanation of what weasel words are, and why they're wrong. I may be right, or I may be wrong. But here goes:
Weasel words are terms attached to a statement which make the authority of the statement unclear. The underlying statement, or the weasel term itself, may be an unreferenced opinion and should be edited or removed, a fact which has been unreferenced and needs to be cited, or a statement not requiring referencing which could be edited to make that clear. As such, the statement either needs to be rephrased, referenced, or removed. Because Wikipedia relies on material being verifiable and not being original research, statements containing weasel terms need to be either:
- Properly cited as a referenced fact.
- Rephrased without the weasel terms.
- Removed as an opinion, not a referenced fact.
- Noted for later editing.
Common sense will dictate the occasional exception. Even in these cases, weasel terms can usually be rephrased. If there is doubt as to whether a phrase contains weasel words, ask about it on the Talk page of the article.
I guess I still don't understand what's so unclear about it. LaughingVulcan 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I support all that, but on the other hand, WP:V and WP:OR cover the relevant issues, and the exact wording has been raked over in tens of thousands of talk page comments, and reflects consensus as well as any WP pages do. I understand the desire to restate things in language that is simpler or more accessible, but the bottom line is that the larger community has been extremely vocal about these issues and isn't asking for our help translating what they've said. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dan, All roads lead to Rome does not mean that we have no need of maps. LV,This summary statement is a great improvement. Dan, style is different from content and weasel as peacock is also a matter of style. Plenty of great lawyers use weasel words carefully. We should not and we need to be explicit. --BozMo talk 16:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:V and WP:OR don't sufficiently cover the specific phrasing issues that WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK get into detail about. The policy pages cannot stand on their own as a complete, self-contained treatise on how Wikipedia articles should and shouldn't be written. There simply isn't enough space in those policies to document all the real, actual issues that crop up in day-to-day editing. Your edit history suggests you spend the majority of your time in Wikipedia namespaces, so perhaps you don't come across well-meaning, poorly-informed newcomers too often... if you did, though, you'd understand we need a range of pages with some teeth behind them, to get these newcomers focused on -- and interested in -- writing in an encyclopedic style. WP:WEASEL helps with that in ways that WP:V and WP:OR cannot. Warren -talk- 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm tied up with WP:V0.7; I won't have time to respond until it's out the door, probably in December. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, Dan. I also read the above that you're pretty tied up.
- I can understand that V and OR cover the relevant issues, and I think we agree that taken together they probably cover "weasel" and "peacock" situations. But V does not cover the notion that original research often masks itself with an unverified appeal to authority (though, in fairness, V does say that it must operate in concert with OR and NPOV.) OR is much better about incorporating V into it, but OR does not readily acknowledge that there are times and places where a phrase might be used which does not need to be referenced or removed - rephrasing might be enough to avoid V and OR both, yet leave the essence of the phrase in. (Because the phrase is most likely common sense that would not be challenged by a majority of editors or readers.)
- In short, I think Weasel fills a gap in the intersection between V and OR, and that it always has. (But I also can see that your opinion may differ from mine about that.) But, if this guideline does not directly conflict with either V or OR, aside from detailing where exceptions might happen, then again I don't see why it can't exist as a guideline. It's my experience that guidelines help interpret and apply policy. (I'll detail the problem with specific examples below.) LaughingVulcan 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
I've been looking at "what links here" from the Weasel template, which has reinforced my original impression that this template, and this guideline, is more often applied wrongly than correctly. For example, where are the weasels in St John Ambulance Australia, tagged for several months? Can they be "In general, youth and cadet divisions meet once a week, to in a designated place, to conduct a training night. As mentioned above, these nights are not just spent learning first aid. The training program includes various other topics, which are of general interest to most." and a couple of similar statements? The article has only one inline cite, & needs a citation tag rather than a weasel one. Other articles/sections are tagged despite meeting the 2nd "clear exception" in the page. I haven't really seen any articles where "citation needed" tags would not be more appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- This seems like the central question to me; how is it actually used? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- One quick test to that is if there's any inline tagging done. Template:Who, Template:By whom, and Template:Weasel-inline are all examples referenced in the Weasel template documentation. None of them here. So we go deeper.
- As to specific examples, jumping to the current article:
- The claim that, "St John is the largest first aid training organisation in Australia." may be a peacock, or borderline weasel. Who says it's the largest? Were it cited, it wouldn't be a problem. Were verifiable facts introduced which proves it's the "largest," again no problem.
- "The training program includes various other topics, which are of general interest to most." Most who? Who says the topics are of general interest to most?
- "In most states, new youth members will be put through a Senior First Aid Course (SFA), which is usually worth ~$200." We could ask which states, but the more interesting question is Who says the SFA course is worth $200?
- What independent sources answer these questions? And if none, then are these statements worth rephrasing, or should they be removed? Which are worth an exception? Which are common sense to anyone who lives in Australia?
- Now, the template could still be inappropriately inapplied. But unless those questions are answered, we can't say if it's applied correctly or not. I also note that the Talk page contains no help.
- On the other hand, the {{references}} banner at the bottom now seems to be inappropriately inapplied. There are references at the bottom. So it needs Template:Refimprove instead. In this case removing the Weasel template probably wouldn't hurt anything major. Yet I could find those examples, anyway.
- Picking another completely random Article example, I got National_Basketball_Association#Recent_problems. The first sentence, "The NBA has lost a lot of its popularity due to widely publicized problems within the league." Who says it's lost a lot of its' popularity because of problems? And that's the justification for the whole section, apparently. There you go, clear Weasel. Sure, V and OR cover it. But Weasel described the problem with that sentence a lot better.
- And there seem to be between 1,000 and 1,500 examples that What Links Here
the template historyreveals to me, including transclusions. Approximately 0.06% of the approximate total article count. What would be a good randomly chosen sample size to determine the appropriateness of the template, and under which statistical mechanism would we like to operate to determine the validity of template application? Or would we rather just cite anecdotal examples? I'm not picking on the example - it is still a good question. LaughingVulcan 23:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, & mentioned, the article has referencing issues, but I just can't see how ""St John is the largest first aid training organisation in Australia." may be ... borderline weasel" in any shape or form. It is a bald stement of fact, which might be right & might be wrong, but is surely totally verifiable or falsifiable either way. Once again we come back to the fundamental question: what the hell is a weasel anyway? Nobody seems to know, or everyone has their own idea. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] One other item...
...And I'll be brief.
My understanding from WP:GUIDELINE is that the current forum to discuss upgrades/downgrades to guideline/essay status is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Was the change from guideline to essay discussed there? I can find where the un-demotion was auto-reported ( link )Thanks, LaughingVulcan 00:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not to my knowledge. WP:GUIDELINE (aka WP:POLICY) says: "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), discussion of existing and proposed policies". WEASEL was a style guideline. WP:VPP people have expressed a distaste for style guidelines issues in the past, so much so that style guidelines are the only policies and guidelines currently not being reported on promotion and demotion at WP:VPP; those are reported (now) at WT:MOS and WT:MOSCO. This subject you're bringing up has current threads at both WT:MOSCO and WT:POLICY. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to discussing any guideline at WP:VPP, and I often do. I just don't often get a response on style issues. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Zzzzz
For anyone still tuned in, I made a specific recommendation for a change at WT:V and a possible related change of focus here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay! I guess I'm not going to be able to put off working on this page any longer, it was just suggested for a merge. I'll get to work today; I've been collecting suggestions, and we have a talk page full of them. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dank, You are all over the place (as in posting in lots of places) with this including rather hard to follow messages which don't all get a response (also confusing style and policy). Could I suggest you slow right down in one place until you have collected a reasonable number of engaged interlocutors? Then we can start trying to take it forward. --BozMo talk 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
←If you look at my contribs, you'll see I watchlist a lot of pages, but I'm not starting up conversations on this issue in different places, that I recall (except for WT:V ... I felt that was the logical first step, but no one responded, so I'll come back there after we've finished here). I responded to what G-guy said at WT:WORDS, and I responded to what MBisanz said at WT:PEACOCK, and I've been responding to other people on this page, too. Moving on, do we have agreement or disagreement with some of the following principles? (And if you'd prefer to do this at some place like the Pump or WT:MOSCO or WT:MOS, that's fine, but I did specifically mention this page over at WT:V.)
- Slapping "per WEASEL" in an edit summary borders on AGF issues. People don't like to be called weasels. I propose we rename this page, or if MBisanz's proposal to merge goes through, merge it into another page.
- The name I'd recommend is WP:Clear language. I'd like for this page to be seen as more important, which would probably happen as a result of being linked directly from WT:V. Please see WT:V#Small furry creatures.
- Policy trumps guidelines, every time. If the reason to remove text from an article is a policy reason, then we should say that. However, I'd be okay with an edit summary on deletion of material that said "per WP:Clear language" if this (renamed) page made it clear that it is attempting to explain which language will always fail the test at WP:BURDEN, no matter how many sources you find, because the language is too vague to support, or impossible to prove right or wrong by citing a source. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also, where did I confuse style and policy? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think WP:Clear language is a very interesting proposal on Weasel. But it doesn't cover peacock, which I tend to think of as the other half of a matching set. What did you think of WP:encyclopedic language which kind of gets both? This used to exist a few years ago I think. --BozMo talk 20:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not getting anything on that name, even a deleted page (but then I'm not an admin), but that sounds helpful, if you can find text from it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately even as an admin I struggle to trace pages which have moved. There is Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards there was structure around it. I think it went out of fashion (see [3] because it was too all embracing. People wanted lots of specific rules rather than a few general ones. Apparently the opposite of todays trend. --BozMo talk 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
If you try to eliminate weasel words, how will ideologues sell their ideas ? if someone wants to couch a discussion, making their extreme or narrow viewpoint seem palatable or popular, what discussion method should they use ? If you start marking weasel words for deletion, entire sections fall apart.
[edit] =
[edit] Suggested change to wording of nutshell
A certain editor appeared to think that citing a source was sufficient to allow use of weasel words in an article. This is clearly not the intent of the article, as I read it. I suggest changing the nutshell to make this clear and avoid acrimony in the future:
The page's text ought also be changed to clarify whether citing sources is sufficient. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is surely very clear that it is. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- So you're saying that the resolution to a statement such as "Some people have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." Is changing it to "Some people have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate.[1]", not rewording per Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel_worded_statements and WP:SUBSTANTIATE (and presumably citing as well)? --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Some people say..." may not be great but "Many historians believe..." + cites may often be an appropriate thing to say. The train wreck above & on the page is the story of WP's inability to define a boundary between the two. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK so we basically agree and I haven't grossly misunderstood the intent of the guideline. My problem with the nutshell is it is easily interpreted as meaning that simply citing the most gross use of weasel words is OK, and indeed I had a mild disagreement with a user who argued that. I'm inclined to abandon WP:WEASEL and cite WP:SUBSTANTIATE anyway. Thanks for clarifying. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are also issues like - is the cite to one of the "some", or to an analysis of several of the "some people"'s views, or something in between. Sometimes it is better to say "Historian Fred Dweeb believes...", other times not, eg if the ref is to "Dweeb, Fred; The Debate over the Literacy of John Smith. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The word " probably" =
Good day , could the word " probably" be called a weasel word?
What about the example below :
e.g. : The disease described in the Chronicle of England is probably yellow fever
would the use of the sentence above , as a footnote text, be acceptable as to scientific standards for college assignments?
thanks for all help mates
A Byrne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.80.47 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The assumption is of course that a source can be found to any statement made, but the further back in time we go the more unlikely it is that any such sources may be found. We are back at the old problem of making a plausible assumption of things that almost certainly would have happened a long time ago, but which cannot possibly be sourced. This also applies to occasions when too many sources could be amassed, such as "in World War II, in both Germany and Britain rationing had to be introduced". These are necessary generalizations which it would be ridiculous to having to find sources for, a) whom are you going to cite as being the most representative of the sources because there are so many, and b) surely everyone knows by now that rationing was going on. Some things just don't have to be sourced, surely.
- As for the term "probably", no it is perfectly reasonable to make an assumption if the actuality cannot be sourced (and proved) at "this precise stage in time". Isn't this how most scientific theories start out on their long course before they are being proved by experiment? One scientist says to another, "you know, there is 'probably' some kind of 'black hole' out there somewhere, that causes such and such". Well, that sort of thing takes an awful long time before it can be proved. And as for sourcing, that takes quite some time longer. So, I think between one scientist and another, they will accept the term "probably" for what it is, as an indication that they have an inkling but the fact can't be proved and sourced yet at this moment. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all help guys ,
I have a dilemma in my assignment :
in fact I am writting about a chronicle of colonial times in Brazil . In the manuscript I read says that in 1687 some unknown plague killed lots of people and by the shallow description of the disease ( yellow fever' s two known symptoms only are described) and after talking to one friend who is a physician, for a more scientific approach , and referring to another historian' s book , I came to the conclusion that the disease might be yellow fever . So I put as a footnote in my assignment :" Probably yellow fever " . Think it is quite acceptable , for I cannot go and check the dead myself , unless some archaeological/forensic research proves otherwise. So the term " probably " serves me well. It cannot be considered a weasel word.
That is one of the problems with very old manuscript chronicles , you can never be 100% sure . A Byrne 58.169.129.48 (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Here that would be WP:OR. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right, editing a Wikipedia article is a different matter, but presumably your assignment has its own set of rules and you obviously must know them from the outset. Wikipedians can only include as facts what is already written elsewhere and cite it. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone gives up aquaculture after three months, and they don't hav aquatic plants, I'll be tempted to write their experience off as a plankton bloom. I can never be sure, though, unless they measure turbidity levels. This one is tough, because I write "probably" so much, myself. Sometimes, I will even say "almost certainly". And, in aquatic biochemistry for example, a lot of variables are present. It boils down to a judgement call on how important a fact is, how distinctive a disease is, and how many authorities came to the same conclusion without a conference. New Tank Syndrome is not a distinctive disease. "Probably" is equivocation, though, and outside of mathematics and physics, I think you should get used to it. BrewJay (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Under the heading "offensive"
The "Backronym" page does not have a heading called "offensive" at the moment, someone needs to fix this or delete the sentence. Sorceressknight (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I spotted that too, and came to see if anyone else had noticed... I'm leaving it to the pro's though. It probably needs rewriting, without reference to an article, or at least one that's not likely to be changed - I'm guessing the "Offensive" section of the "Backronym" page was removed either with or without a general consensus: those sorts of potentially-offensive sections and articles are always being taken apart and put back together by well-meaning types who don't know their guidelines... Which is precisely why I'm not doing the edit! But someone should, because as it stands, it isn't illuminating the question "Are some articles better off with or without the passive voice?" too well - it gets the point across, but it's a bit confusing without the quoted section. 82.11.194.227 (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- That section was from an old version of the page, restored on 24 September, but it no longer adds much to this guideline page, the Bacronym article is different now, so I have removed the section, and there are plenty of examples provided elsewhere. NewbyG ( talk) 23:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I like how clear this is becoming.
Even though weasel word is more general in its definition, I like how easy this is to read and apply. I don't believe that any volume of dissent on this topic is a problem, either. It's just that wikipedia is not equipped to make professional writers out of everyone. Learning to cast any sentence in the active voice was hard for me, and I still write some passive stuff. I recommend The Practical Stylist. I found it very satisfying to do all of the the exercises at the end of chapter eight without a deadline or a reviewer. BrewJay (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's too easy to apply: you get people who feel empowered to edit subjects they know nothing about, because they see one of the Forbidden Phrases and figure it'll obviously be better if they remove it. So something like "Gary Snyder is a poet frequently associated with the Beat Generation" gets turned into "Gary Snyder is a Beat Generation poet" -- the problem being that this later statement is dubious and debateable, while the first is obviously true to anyone who knows anything about the subject. Even if all that happens is a "citation needed" tag gets slapped on that statement, that's still pretty silly: you're not supposed to have to add references to everything, you're supposed to reference things that are "challenged or are likely to be challenged", but in this case, because of this style guide entry you're getting a challenge that doesn't mean anything because the person making the challenge doesn't actually know anything about the field. -- Doom (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- In other words, I strongly, emphatically, disagree with this: If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.
- Real world case: someone wanted to say "Beatnik" is considered by many to be a pejorative term. Someone slapped a "weasel words" tag on this. How can we fix this to avoid that challenge? Well one way would be to just say this: "Beatnik" is a term with some pejorative connotations. That makes the "weasel words" go away doesn't it? But it doen't actually make it a better article in any way: all it is is a bit of legalistic gyration to silence people who are hyped up about the Forbidden Phrases. And further I submit that supplying a citation to some article discussing the connotations of the term 'beatnik" would be at best a minor improvement. Not everything needs to be cited: some things are important to cite, other's just aren't. Not one would bother to challenge this point, were it not for the existence of this style guide. --- Doom (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] HEAR ME ALL WIKIPEDIANS, FOR I HAVE A SUGGESTION!
I would like to propose that the policy should be amended so that a cited weasel-y statement is acceptable, somewhat of a compromise between this and WP:EWW. Vote or comment and the results we be shown at the Villiage pump for wider review.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Presenting a quote of an opinion is a typical journalist trick to slip in the POV that they're pushing -- it's often little better than openly editorializing. Either there's something sleazy and misleading about a line like "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest novel", or there's nothing wrong with it. Slipping it in by finding someone you can quote who said what you want to say is very close to "gaming the system". -- Doom (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"Weasely", rather than "weaselly". Unaccented second syllable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.15.120 (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing caution tag from article
Looking at the discussion page, it looks like the debate on whether this should remain a style guideline ended about a month ago. I'm removing the caution tag from the page, but feel free to restore it if debate continues. -Kieran (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CANCEL THIS GUIDELINE!!!!!
Wikipedia should not be too precise....Or it will be useless... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren (talk • contribs) 06:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Biased against weasels--John Bessa (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Example
Just passing through. The example "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats", which the guideline implies is OK, doesn't seem ideal to me. This statement seems kind of pointless and unencyclopedic. Would any article really benefit from having this pointed out? I wonder if anyone can think of a better example to illustrate the point being made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.150 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What would the opposite of weasel words be?
Say instead of having words and phrases that support a statement, you have words that cast doubt on a statement. For example: "So-n-so used to be heterosexual" vs. "So-n-so says he used to be heterosexual." 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's like asking what the opposite of punching someone in the face would be. Warren -talk- 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- that's easy: it's punching someone in the fist with your face.
- weasel-wording is the act of using vague and misleading phrases to support or advance a claim that you couldn't ordinarily support or advance on wikipedia. it's insinuation, and it's the same thing whether you're insinuating that something is true or insinuating that something is false. --Ludwigs2 06:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] "Terrorism" a weasel word?
Considering its contentious nature, could the word "terrorism" be added to the weasel word list? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are misunderstanding the concept. Please look at the examples from the project page. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to add page to CAT:GEN
See WT:MOS#Propose adding to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words to Category:General style guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The media should read this article
Reading the list of weasel words reminds me of reading an article from the mainstream media. All reporters need to read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.35.189 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Birthright citizenship in the United States
Is "a lot of people, too many to list" sufficient justification for removing a [who?] tag?-32.146.97.244 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand Wikipedia tags are often used as harassment. For instance does the statement "jumping in front of fast moving cars is not recommended" really need a citation? The word "recommended" already flags this as purely an opinion. But more importantly the knowledge or obvious of the conclusion truly is so widespread that finding and agreeing upon "Top" experts will be difficult.
- OK such statements are often merely reminders of "common experience" or common sense which theoretically should be omitted...except almost everyone new to the topic may potentially learn via error while overwhelmed by the newness. I say as long as the caution is short and pithy and obvious -- let it stand without pointless references.
- Save the citations for technical details supporting those little cautionary common sense conclusions. Anyone who disagrees with that should try holding their breath until they get a citation from one of the "top" 10 experts on earth that they need to breathe. Heh 69.23.124.142 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Doubtful
- Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.
Aside from being a glaring and highly prominent violation of the guideline that is being explained, this simply isn't true. "Weasel words" are not "generally considered" to mean this. This is a meaning that Wikipedia seems to have invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.130.231 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] ...As most Wikipedians agree...
Hi, 216.90.33.33, yes, I can see doubts arising about my edit. Yes, I did try to make the point by using an example, as I thought the original sentence was meant to do. The trouble with the prompts "Who", "What", etc. is that they try to prompt the author to cite exactly who said what and what is involved. That of course is never possible with ad populum arguments (how many Wikipedians can one possibly cite in this case?). That is why I reverted the prompts. Are you happy with my intentions, or do you think they need discussing further? Do let me know if there are further points. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested removal of content
I think this guideline is great, and needs to be applied more often, but there are two areas that I think should be cleaned up that could create problems in editting. First, I think the first bullet point on passive voice regarding style manuals should be changed to say something like, "While Weasel Words are often used in the passive tense, the passive tense can still be used in WP articles." As it stands, the point say nothing and contradicts itself. Second, remove the "some people like dogs..." example, as it is another example weasel words that people could draw from. While the idea is good, that point should harken back to the section above saying that the opinion should be avoided altogether and reworded. For instance, "Polls have shown that preference for cats and dogs is split," with an appropriate citation, or simply letting the article speak for itself without the quote at all. The point in question either needs to be totally reworked or removed, as it seems to be a loophole to allow weasel words as long as someone says, "The believers are too numerous to qualify."
Again, this is a great guideline, but let's remove the loopholes, and thus the arguments. Angryapathy (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Opening sentence
- Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.
Here are some dictionary definitions of "weasel words":
- "intentionally evasive or misleading speech; equivocation" (Collins English Dictionary)
- "statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading" (Compact OED)
- "deliberately misleading or ambiguous language" (Encarta)
- "statements that are intentionally misleading, ambiguous, evasive, or indirect" (The Wordsmyth English Dictionary)
- "Convoluted language used to spin or mislead; sophistry; euphemism" (Wiktionary)
I could go on. You will see that nowhere is there a definition that corresponds the one used here (i.e. that specifically mentions unattributed statements or verifiable sources). The definition that Wikipedia uses here is a small subset of the definition in general use -- perhaps the term was originally chosen by someone unaware of the more general meaning, I'm not sure. I believe, therefore, that the opening sentence quoted above is incorrect. I changed it to "In Wikipedia, weasel words are..." but this was reverted, I think because it was taken to imply that such statements wouldn't be considered "weasel words" outside Wikipedia, rather than that "weasel words" has a wider meaning outside Wikipedia, as I intended. I therefore propose changing the opening sentence to:
- Weasel words are statements that are intentionally evasive, ambiguous or misleading. In Wikipedia, the term specifically refers to words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.
Matt 13:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.214 (talk)
- We are editors and not gods. (Although some editors would disagree with my claim.) The dictionaries listed above make an un-Wikipedian look into the author's heart and see "intentions". Weasel words, as we need to define them, need to have an objective test, not competing subjective claims where two editors can swap accusations "intended"..."not intended". The existing definition is fine. patsw (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] List of examples is getting longer and longer
Should there not be some kind of limit to the list of examples? The number of examples must be infinite, I myself could think of hundreds without even straining my imagination. Am I going to include all of them. I don't think so. Surely, we now have goodly number of them, and we only need an idea of what they are rather than putting what we may or may not come across. We know now what a weasel word is, can we not just limit the list to what we have so far? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've inserted a more visible comment to not add any more examples, perhaps this will work better for the short-attention-span listcrufters who skip over the detail. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, it could even use a trim. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
but ... Montreal is the nicest city in the world ! ..
so what's your point ? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.102.38 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Example section
I removed a significant number of the examples given. A lot of them were redundant, and some weren't even weasel terms. Please, keep the list short! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)