Why? A less pejorative-sounding name than "weasel words". User:Unforgettableid 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Supporters of "avoid weasel terms" include:
Opponents of "avoid weasel terms" include:
.
I recognize the noble intentions of the writers of this page, but it is an obviously flawed policy and, I believe, one of the sorts of pages Wikipedia's critics would point to when accusing the project of elitism or arrogancy. Let's keep the spirit of the article and make sure "weasel terms" don't get used to disguise POV statements, but I suggest not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and keeping our goals in focus.
I wanted to point out that attaching a name to an opinion is different from citing your sources. Consider this:
Versus this:
One axis is that of citing sources; the other is that of naming opinions. They're not really the same thing. -- ESP 00:42 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
---
I think that it's too easy for a contributor to get his own opinions into the articles w/o technically using weasel words by simplying finding some high profile nut who agrees with you and quoting him.
Is "John Q. Smith of the Whatever Organization said, 'President Clinton is evil'," anyless biased that "Some people think Clinton is evil"?
So what are we meant to do when something really is "widely believed"? Attaching one name to a widely held opinion seems a worse violation of NPOV (because it draws undue attention to that one name) than just leaving it at "widely believed" would. I'm thinking of statements such as "Brahms is widely considered one of the greatest of all classical composers". --Camembert
Well, now I've slept on it, I don't seem to have so much of a problem with this any more (not that I had massive problems with it before). As a rule of thumb, I think it's a good one. --Camembert
Can we get some help on Jean-Marie Le Pen? The neutrality of the article is disputed, and the use of weasel terms doesn't seem to help. -- Miguel
It's a bit painful. Le Pen has basically been criticized by political leaders and journalists in Europe and the United States - basically anybody who mentions him, except for the far rightists, is highly critical. No major French political leader outside of his party (and the Megretist spin-off) wants to have anything to do with him.
To return to the discussion from a month ago (when I actually missed it totally, despite having been interested ;-):
I think this advice is a very important advice (although not neccessarily given its optimal wording yet), which ought to be stressed in the NPOV-policy.
But at the same time I would like to give an example where I myself (for the moment at least) believe a phrase of this style being appropriate. See: Stauning for an article on a Danish politician. In its current version it ends with the statement: There are many reasons to consider him the greatest figure in 20th century Danish politics.
Being a politician, he was of course not un-controversial. And some of his political adversaries (to which I belong, sort of, altough I only work in Denmark without the right to vote) can of course, for pure prestige, not really agree. But factually this man is widely recognized among his fellow country-men as the greatest (or one of the very greatest) since Denmark became a democracy, and politicians became worth considering.
And in my opinion, it is of great importance for non-Danes (as myself - who lack a great deal of the contextual knowledge the Danes have) to get this kind of clues. You don't want to litter your memory with all kind of second- and third-rank personalities when your memory is limited.
I would appreciate comments.
;-))
--Ruhrjung 21:15, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have written a bit about mexican politicians, and I have similar problems. Weasel words seem to crop everywhere, and I keep them mostly because
My intended and temporary solution is to add references and try to use weasel words for both sides. If I write "Critics said this", try to add "but supporters argued that". It's not perfect but at least you can weigh arguments. It could be better by supplying more and specific references, but brevity suffers, and I have no way of knowing if the reader will be inclined to follow. Paper enciclopedias are usually dry, but I think that's because lack of space. It is hard to decide how much to say, and my personal view is that to understand politics you must understand the people and viceversa. And as Ruhrjung said, foreigners don't have context. Sometimes I think if this isn't a clue politics shouldn't go into an encyclopedia, but where else then?
Asereje 00:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Suddenly one day, ...today to be precise, I discovered the policy against "weasel terms", exemplified as
For long these kind of expressions has been one of my main points of critics against the Wikipedia project, and of course I can blame myself for my bad command of English and my too superficial study of Wikipedia policies, that I in several months haven't understood that my critic actually "is" answered in Wikipedia-policies, but on the other hand it turns out from the what-links-here list that at least the page on "weasel terms" is unknown by most wikipedians.
A few question raise from this:
--Ruhrjung 19:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The following is now very much out of context as it was meant to answer some of the anti-hype on the meta page, and so doesn't really mean much where it is. It would have been much better to move the whole lot over to this site, so everyone can see the intention behind this article. Dieter Simon 00:28, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It is all well and good to make a bald statement like that and recommend to "find some evidence that backs up the statement...", etc., but I am afraid it is good procedure in that encyclopedias use anonymous controversialists. Take the Oxford Companion to the English Language in one of its paragraphs in the article on Phrasal verbs: "Grammarians have adopted two main positions with regard to the nature and use of phrasal verbs: (1)... (2)..." There is no mention whatsoever who these grammarians are, and why should there be? If there is a general acknowledgement that there are two or more sides to an argument then that should suffice. This happens often enough, especially if controversies stretch back in time, and it is impossible to find the original speaker. I am sorry, if this is an example of "weasel words" then I am all for it. :) --Dieter Simon 00:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hear, hear! There's no weaseling going on when one is fairly attributing a widely held view to a class a people, such as grammarians in the example above. It's not weasling even to write "some grammarians say," so long as it's true and the "some" represents a significant faction. 168... 07:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
"Two main positions" that's pretty balanced and complete. "Some people still believe that the Earth is flat." this could be viewed as fact.
This is not exactly the same as "Jacques Chirac is a communist" such an assertion need serious sources and serious arguments even if you wrote "Some people think that Jacques Chirac is a communist". Of course the problem appear only when the subject is controversial nobody will Discuss "Hitler was Nazi" and nobody will try to write "According too some Hitler was Nazi" to fit NPOV policy. Ericd 07:29, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How about replacing "avoid weasel terms" by "weaseling out of POV is not NPOV"? -- Miguel
I wonder (as above) if "weaseling" and "weasel term" are good terms in this context were many of the targets for the advice have other mother tongues than English, and won't understand. --Ruhrjung 17:22, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think it depends on what is meant by "weasel terms/words". Are they different opinions that when quoted together result in a libellous article directed at individuals or institutions, and in which the opinion formers try to evade their share of the libel by remaining anonymous? If so, yes, it would indeed be a misuse of anonymity.
On the other hand, I must stress that it must be permissible in genuine discourse, to argue from different sides about cultural, scientific, or philosophical themes and to cite anonymous general trends of opinions either because the holders of these opinions are too numerous or the tradition of the (anonymous) opinion goes back too far in time to ascertain the individuals by name. Can someone make that clear, :) Dieter Simon 00:31, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm not particularly well-informed about Wikipedian policy, and am not sure if this point has already been debated, but I think the page title here, should read as "Avoid Passive Voice".
To make my case, if you google for the text, "Avoid Passive Voice", you'll find quite a few pages with page-content that resembles arguments made by this Wikipedia policy article. -- Phil R 05:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree.
The problem is not the grammatical voice, but when the (grammatical) agent is omitted. Passive voice is splendid to focus on what's important, when that is what is done, or to whom it's done, but it doesn't say you have to leave out the agent. --Ruhrjung 18:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just don't like the term, but I appreciate the guideline behind it. Whenever someone declares "weasel terms" on something I've written, it feels like they're calling me a weasel in public, even if what I've written was an innocent grammatical mistake. And that's just unacceptable. We need a better term. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 17:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What if what you are stating is actually an opinion that can't be verified. For example, "Many numismatists consider the ultra high relief St. Gauden's double eagle to be the most beautiful coin ever struck in the United States."
This uses weasel words, but I don't think it's inappropriate because it's an artistic interpretation that is always subjective, and can't be reduced to objective terms.
Comments?
The policy on "Avoid weasel terms" is overly broad. It needs to be renamed and rewritten to conform to the guidelines set forth at Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles#Be_careful_with_weaselspeak:
Added: Even the term "weasel terms" is inappropriate. As noted above, what some consider "weasel terms" are in fact legitimate rhetorical devices. As such, the policy should be renamed "Avoid unnecessary vagueness."
-- NetEsq 17:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
<< "Avoid unnecessary vagueness" is itself unnecessarily vague. >>
How about "Avoid unnecessary vagueness about sources." As set forth by other commentators above, attributing statements of general belief to specific sources puts a very bizarre spin on widely-held beliefs. Even a controversial assertion can and should be generalized in many instances. To wit, "Many conspiracy theorists believe that the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy." Too much specificity about who these conspiracy theorists are would cloud the issue. At the same time, the commentary of certain conspiracy theorists may be unique and noteworthy enough to include a more specific reference. -- NetEsq 22:30, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is helpful to think of this guideline as an ideal golden standard that we should always strive towards, even if it may not be perfectly attainable. Another way to view this issue is that weasel words tend to hide the context surrounding a claim, and the remedy is therefore to elaborate on the context more, hopefully to the point where the weasel word or phrasing becomes completely unnecessary. For example:
Again, context is the useful keyword to think about here. The weasel word may be tolerated if surrounding sentences provide enough context to a reader of any background in evaluating the claim.
And don't forget that sometimes less is more—for example, calling something "a simple dish" is either redundant or offensive if you already give an example recipe on it: let the reader decide on the simplicity for themselves based on the facts (the recipe). Remember that people have different backgrounds and abilities; to someone with Parkinson's disease for example, the "simple" task of dressing oneself can be a daily struggle. 131.107.0.81 20:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
STUBBISH WEASELY OR INADVERTANT? It must be considered fine if one person knows they read a POV somewhere but can't remember much about the details mustn't it? They can write "a minority opinion is that..." this is enough to trigger a memory in the mind of a later reader who may know the details of that belief on a subject and fill in the ambiguity. In this way many an obscure source or topic has become expanded to an authororative article on a little known subject making Wiki in some ways a superior source of reference. The only problem is if the opinion is actually a little known but indisutable fact in which case the use of a term like "minority" may inadvertantly become weasely.
I disagree with the name and spirit of this page. So called "weasel terms" are indeed legitimate rhetorical devices (though, of course, they may be abused, as can as any other rhetorical device.) Any such statement as "Some people think X" or "Many people believe Y" should be carefully reviewed through the ordinary peer process, (just as any statement at all must be peer reviewed.) If the editorial community on the Wikipedia finds that these statements are accurate, then there is no reason not to have them.
Substantiating every single observation running through society with specific citations would make the encyclopedia boring and tedious to write and read, and, moreover, incomplete -- if a view is very widespread, it becomes pointless to list long source citations of everyone who holds this view, and it distorts the spirit of the statement by making it appear as if only those listed hold this view. At some point, it is only necessary to report on the view itself, rather than upon every single person who has ever expressed it. When writing about anything related to the arts (an inherently subjective area), or indeed, when writing any sentence that is not merely reporting on a physical fact, the article text would become awkward and overwrought with lengthy, yet incomplete, lists of attributions.
Let's look at Mona Lisa for an example. Taking only a few of the many "weasel statements" on that page, we find:
According to whom? Many, many people have uttered support for these positions. Are we to list them all?
These are all "weasel statements", according to the definitions set forth on this page. 80% of the articles in the Wikipedia use technically unsubstantiated statements like these, and there is nothing at all wrong with that, if the peer review process achieves consensus as to their accuracy.
It's tedious and contrived, bordering on absurd, to write articles according to the tenets presented on [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]. I wholeheartedly oppose this page. Kwertii 08:07, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
DanKeshet (Wikipedia is littered with personal opinions masked as common knowledge)
Indeed it is, and such personal opinions must certainly be removed. However, this does not imply that we shouldn't include any useful common knowledge information in the Wikipedia simply because the language used to describe common knowledge is similar to language used to describe personal opinions. Kwertii 23:55, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think that the policy on weasel terms is overly broad indeed. There happens many times where a certain person or corporation is widely said to have certain positions, but denies it himself. For instance, many people in France contend that the TF1 TV-channel tends to exhibit right-wing bias; but of course, this is very difficult to substantiate precisely, and they won't admit to it. Yet, I think that the fact that many contend that this channel is biased is in itself a good piece of information. David.Monniaux 18:05, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I moved the disclaimer about the policy to the bottom. I think the policy page should be about the policy, and discussion should be on the discussion page. It doesn't make sense to tell people "see the talk page" without first having explained what's being talked about.
Please don't move the disclaimer again. --ESP 22:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
So, this style guideline has been pretty controversial. I revised the description to specifically call out some exceptions, and to point out that as with all rules of thumb, it should be balanced against other considerations. I'd love to see some feedback from some detractors. Does including exceptions make this style guideline at least somewhat less worrisome? --ESP 01:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
How ironic is it that the link to the talk page on avoiding weasel terms starts with "Some people ..." ? pne 17:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've been suggesting that this page and Avoid peacock terms could both be replaced by a combined page. My attempt at writing one is currently sitting in my sandbox: "Use Caution with Complimentary Phrases and Non-specific Attribution". Comments welcome. -- Doom 04:06, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
As it stands now I find this article really questionable. I do not see why any person would want parts of Stupid White Men in the Bush article. If at all the alleged "weasel" term could be sourced in <!-- brackets -->. [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 15:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"It is suggested" or "is it hinted at" are valid statements for works of fiction or creativity, when something is being suggested by the author, hinted at, or given subtlety. In non-fiction, the author may explicitly suggest or imply information. In both cases, a direct reference or quote is more useful to the reader.
I was reading some of the discussion that's occurred here over the last few months. I've also been thinking about sentences like
While I agree that we neither need nor want long lists of citations for every sentence, I think it is useful to try to write in ways that hold up both stylistically and factually. For instance,
The second form informs a reader who has never heard of J.Q. Nobody before that the work is significant and provides an authoritative source where one can find out more. On other issues, such as "The belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth was practically universal in Europe before the 16th century", simply appending "(see heliocentrism)" would probably suffice (although the actual heliocentrism article could probably use some more sources for reference or further reading).
One difference between Wikipedia and a conventional encyclopedia is that it should not be assumed a priori that the authors and editors of a Wikipedia article are well-versed in knowledge of the article topic. It is therefore up to the Wikipedian to demonstrate that, in fact, the article is a fair representation of the topic. The reader should be able to learn the basics of the subject from the article and other Wikipedia articles linked to it. External links and references are provided for more in-depth knowledge. Thus, the Wikipedia writer should back up assertions as much as possible so that the reader is confident that she is getting a well-rounded overview of the topic. It is a fine line between "stating common knowledge" and "pulling something out of one's [hat]". Gwimpey 01:02, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
That last edit wasn't a minor edit. Gwimpey 18:58, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
Some would say the following has brought an end to edit wars on the Pinochet pages.
His supporters credit him with staving off communism and rescuing the faltering economy in what they call the "Miracle of Chile", a long period of economic growth brought about by neoliberal market policies. Opponents charge that these policies tended to favor the wealthy and made things worse for the poor in Chile.
Clearly attributions would be nice, but anyone reading the Talk pages would be ablr to inttroduce the weasaling, whereas only a (relative) expert would be able to attribute. Rich Farmbrough 10:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me to be the case that:
(I should add that I think that the solution to the Brahms example above is that the use of "widely considered" is not a weasel term in this context: that is, one cannot tell by purely syntactic means whether a usage is weaselly or not, but rather the list of terms should be considered to be danger signs: this point is really beyond the scope of what I want to say here)
We say that an article that asserts controversial opinions directly has a POV problem. Equally we could say an article that dresses such opinions in weasel terms has a WNPOV problem (weaselly-neutral point of view). Then we could say that
To put this another way: POV problems are an intolerable violation of Wikipedia goals, and although WNPOV is not ideal, it is very definitely an improvement.
I'd suggest that the policy is best known as minimise weasel terms, since avoid weasel terms might be likely to discourage edits that improve Wikipedia. ---- Charles Stewart 17:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All these instructions about weasel terms; examples, what to avoid, how to avoid etc.. Who said that? When did they say it? Mere anonymous (for the most part) Wikipedians it would appear. Am I right in thinking that the whole notion of weasel words is itself POV? It's interesting that some of the articles derived from the 1911 Britannica have their fair share of weasel terms. Arcturus 13:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please see a separate article weasel word where the term is actually explained and highlighted. Dieter Simon 01:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Try: "The Yankees are one of the most successful baseball teams in history." It's true and also captures the pithiness of the original sentence. A followup sentence or expansion later in the article can deal with the statistics if necessary. Eliminating opinionated writing does not require immediate presentation of supporting facts, it requires simply finding the most truthfully accurate statement that is synonymous with it. Sbwoodside 02:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I object to this shameless blatant bias against defenseless Mustelidae dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In some cases the reputation of a subject may be the most important piece of information. This is the case for William Shakespeare, among others: the fact that Shakespeare is widely considered the greatest writer ever is the single most important thing one needs to know about him. I like and recommend Doom's reworking of this article: Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution. Mokus 11:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It would be nice if the world were so simple that we could always find bad uses of "weasel terms" with a regular expression match. Sadily, that isn't the case.
'Weasel terms' can be a good indicator of poor english (excessivly passive voice), but they can just as easily be the only brief way to reference an undisputed opnion. If these were the only places they were used, the subject wouldn't be worth discussing. The real problem with 'weasel terms' is that they can be used to disguise NPOV problems, so we must consider the usage of "weasel terms" in that greater context. The million potential arguments about the valid use of the strings suggested as weasly is just a strawman argument.
I found out about "Avoid weasel terms" because an article I'd been watching with a horribly non-neutral point of view, which I was intending to correct sooner or later, was 'fixed': Some goodhearted NPOV warrior went and fixed the NPOV issues....
Except this person didn't fix them at all. What was actually done was just some phrasing changes that removed the keywords that would allow a reader to reconize the significant bias of the author right away. At first blush the article now looks much more neutral, but the changes only amounted to a few word removals and 'weasel term' insertions... the agenda of the non-neutral author remained.
I believe that fixing NPOV via 'weasel terms' is much worse than just leaving in the non-NPOV text in place, since it disarms some of the reader's natural defenses against biased authors.
Is it Wikipedia's goal that articles will actually be neutral, or is it more important that they just look neutral?Gmaxwell 23:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, we now have people "fixing" articles by removing "weasel words" and replacing vaguely attributed statements with unqualified assertions of these statements as true!! e.g. [1] Surely this is the reverse of the desired result of the "weasel words" policy? The policy needs to be repositioned so that people do not misinterpret it as simply removing qualifying phrases. --JWB 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why not just leave 'some people say...' etc. to a per-case basis NPOV dispute, rather than this pedantic carp that helps nobody and is a waste of db space --Cynical 20:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Some people say this talk page is too long. Critics have suggested that it be shortened, but it's been reported that some dont know how to shorten the talk page themselvs, and legend has it that this may be a humerous attempt to point out that fact. Pellaken 00:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I want to suggest that a fellow editor avoid weasel terms without suggesting that he's... uh... a weasel. Any advice? Thanks. Dave 07:28, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've just pushed out my proposed replacement from my sandbox to the style guide: Wikipedia:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution. -- Doom 21:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Political/Religious Movements don't like to say that their doctrines are something they hashed out at a committee meeting. They try to represent their doctrines as some ancient yearning of some "people" or "nation". So we get statements like "the X people/nation have long considered Y territory to be their spiritual/ancestral home". The notion of "people/nation" is purely a Political/Religious belief - there is no scientific basis for these concepts. But if you admit this notion then by definition, the belief of the self-defined "people" in their claim of territory becomes NPOV. It is not necessary to prove that anyone but the self-defined "people" actually believes it - if they don't believe it they are not the "people".
this article doesn't even define the term; it just gives examples - so the reader has to infer. the first sentence needs to be a simple definition. i'd do it, but i am not sure how to phrase it. Kingturtle 16:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Considering that it has good guidelines, it appears that every time you ask a POV pusher to fix up their attributions (for instance, when they say "Most scholars" or "Some scholars") they just say "Oh, that's a guideline and we don't need to take it that seriously for this article".
Not to be too cynical, but how many articles have we now got on Wikipedia that have such poorly written phrases? For instance, sneak a peak at Zoroastrianism - apparently Paul B feels that everyone knows that the majority of scholars agree with certain points of view. Apparently this is good enough not to tighten up the article. And there are hundreds of other instances, just like this one. What will it take? A wholesale rewriting or removal of material from an article to have it tightened up? I really won't be doing this, because it's not constructive. But it's most sorely tempting... if the authors can't provide sources, then they should not be able to put back the material. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, this policy has been under "dispute" for quite some time - at least six months at this writing. What are the steps to conclude a policy dispute like this? A vote of interested users? Arbitration? A referendum? An edict from Jimbo? I'd love to see a thumbs up or thumbs down on this. :) --NightMonkey 09:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
http://www.weaselwords.com.au/ -->>sparkit|TALK<< 02:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
One other thing some editors do is Instead of
go
where David Smith is someone who is very discredited generally, in order to make Ad Hominem argument against position X, whether or not X is the majority position.
This needs to be prohibited/frowned-upon just as much as going
instead of
The problem being that Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms is almost designed to support the former behaviour.
~~~~ 21:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions in an encyclopedia's pages show that the encyclopedia is unsure of the actual facts. My opinion of course. --AI 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, there might be no controversial opinions regarding the ornamental fish breeding club in boondocks town - which can be stated in the article, if the club survives longer than a week in Wikipedia ;-) -Irmgard 21:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC).
Yes, they're everywhere. You see them in a lot of books and sometimes even encyclopedias. We should be specific, but I do agree that these terms should be avoided if possible. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
That is all. --FuriousFreddy 16:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I added back in a list of examples of weaselly terms. --ESP 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm having a small disagreement with an editor on whether the word "relatively" is a weasel word or not. The context is this:
Relatively few senior Japanese officers and officials were tried or convicted, and a Class-A war criminal, Kishi Nobusuke, later became prime minister.
which I changed to:
Just a few senior Japanese officers and officials were tried or convicted, and a Class-A war criminal, Kishi Nobusuke, later became prime minister.
Since "relatively few" doesn't tell you how few there really were, since there is no comparison mentioned for the "relative" statistics, and that everyone has a different idea of how "relatively few" is "relatively few", I thought it pretty obvious that it is a weasel term, but the other editor disagrees. So I'm seeking opinions here whether "relatively" should be considered a weasel term or not. Or at least, avoided. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 22:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I think, therefore, that the article itself needs to be worded more clearly, because the use of a "weasel term" lies not so much in the term itself but rather the context. Something along the lines of "Avoid vague attribution" seems better. Consider "A number of people were injured in the explosion". Should this be regarded as a weasel term? Should we have a list of all the people? Ideally we would have a referenced number but if one isn't available, the phrase would be fine, surely? The main problem with weasel terms is when they are used to anchor disputed points of view. He who says zonk 16:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The project page states: "Weasel words are often phrased in the passive voice, which weakens the effectiveness of written prose." Is this tongue-in-cheek humor, or just goofyness? Atraxani 21:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Style Guide" box used on this page states that it was included as part of the Style Guide through editor consensus. However, a glance at this talk page indicates that there is hardly a consensus among editors over this page; quite the contrary, in fact. Many, many editors strongly dispute this policy. Therefore, I propose that it be removed from the Style Guide, and placed in a weaker "disputed style polices" section or some such. Kwertii 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen the term 'weasel words' used elsewhere, but not to avoid attribution, but rather, to soften the impact of politically unpopular things. The main examples were things like "collateral damage" for "civilian casualties", and "climate change" for "global warming". Whereas this document is more "Avoid using ugly and vague terms when you don't have a specific reference". Stevage 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is more about attribution of opinion than it is about avoid weasel words. This is a straightforward renaming.
Is there a consenus to do that? patsw 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If this is just about style, it should be compressed and put in the MoS.Stevage 22:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This page is a ripoff of Scott Adam's book "The Way of the Weasel". It is also a copywrite violation (much is copied from the book). I think we should delete it but I'm too shy to list it so I'm just mentioning it. DyslexicEditor 23:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."
This is a really poor example for two simple reasons:
I don't have them handy, so that's why I'm asking you: can we find actual examples, in well-written articles, of opinion holders being too diverse or numerous to qualify, where it still makes sense to mention the opinions? If not, what is this exception trying to accomplish, and can we improve on the wording of that? 82.92.119.11 22:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we use weasel words, used by a third party publication? For example, the following edit was made to the article Nagorno-Karabakh:
According to EurasiaNet, unidentified sources have stated that Arab guerrilla Ibn al-Khattab joined Basayev in Azerbaijan between 1992-1993, although this is dismissed by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence.
The article, to which the reference is made, states: Some say he joined the Chechen guerrillas fighting on Azerbaijan’s side during the 1992-93 Nagorno-Karabakh war, though Ashurov and the Ministry of Defense’s spokesman dismiss this idea. [2]
This falls into the category of weasel words. But since it’s posted in a publication, my opponent insists that he has a right to include it. Can anyone knowledgeable advise on this? Grandmaster 13:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I've grown as an editor just be reading this one article. This should be a must read!!! BlueGoose 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I rolled back the simplified lede for this guideline; I thought it left out some important connotations. --ESP 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Scientology: "Not coincidentally, the Church founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights that same year as its primary vehicle for attacking psychiatry." IMHO "Not coincidentally" is vague (rather than saying that it is not coincidental, why not say what it is?). Apokrif 14:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I'm noticing that every now and then some new weasel word example is added to the article. Though all of them are basically correct I think we should avoid an indiscriminate growth of the section. After all, what matters is explaining the concept which is IMHO clear enough with the examples we already have... no need to add every variation (such as "it can be considered", "can be regarded", "can be seen as", etc.) one could conceive. Do you agree? --Gennaro Prota 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
JA: I will not claim to have discovered a new variety of weasel, but I have been noticing an increasing prevalence in the WikiWoods of weasels in the sheepish clothing of anthropomorphisms. Be very wary in approaching these mimics — allthough the variety Anthropomorphism simplex is a generally harmless critter, easily tamed by simple rephrasing, the weasel in human pelt can be recognized by the fangs that it hides. Jon Awbrey 14:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a question. Why is "It should be noted that" considered an example of a weasal phrase? It really isn't: The author is stating that he thinks some other fact should be considered in order to have the full context. For example, "John killed the man; however, it should be noted that Maryland County investigators found he was suffering from Schizophrenia at the time of the attack and that, consequently, the act may not be murder." Perhaps this is bad style, but where are the weasal words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.210.48 (talk • contribs)
So, the town at the top of the page has been Montreal since this guideline was first written. I don't see a strong reason to change the name to any other town. I realize that having one's town's name listed as an example in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is a feather in the cap comparable to hosting a World's Fair or winning the Super Bowl, but I ask that potential city-changers forbear, to prevent a rush and possible fistfight over the golden prize. --ESP 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
That list is controversial in itself, there is nothing wrong at all with some of those phrases, Wikipedia musn't descent into NPOV parody. "Considered by many..." come on...Most of these phrases are fine as long as evidence and citing of sources is used. Not stating such sources is the real problem not some of these phrases.
I daresay if every instance of 'many believe', or 'it is widely accepted' were to be removed from Wikipedia, it would become a less interesting and informative resource. In my experience, when someone tries to sneak in their minority point of view as being fact, using weasel words or otherwise, the change will not last long.
'Many believe' can be a useful phrase, if in fact the author is actually well-acquainted with a good number of other parties who have expressed opinion on a particular matter. To categorically frown upon this type of language is, I'm sorry to say, a rather sad and anal-retentive gesture by those who consider themselves to be the intellectual elite here at Wikipedia.
At the end of the day, there are some who seem to suggest that a statement made without a citation is worthless at best. Well, ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere -- you eventually follow ideas back far enough and you run out of works to cite. People express opinions. Some are dubious, some are sage. To declare anything using 'weasel words' or 'without proper citation' as invalid and unfit for publication on Wikipedia is a relic of the 'boys club' mentality of the scientific community in the 20th century. And although I cannot provide a citation, many believe that we are now in the 21st century.
Chris 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I retain a lot of information of which I don't remember the source, including opinions that a substantial number of people do indeed hold.
As someone wrote long ago on this discussion page, do we really want information to be withheld from an article because someone can't remember the source?
I realize there can be abuse using "weasel words." An example I read on this page was "Some people believe Bill Clinton is evil." Obviously, unqualified, that is a horrid NPOV violation, even though the statement that SOME people believe it is true.
However, suppose someone wrote, "Many of Bill Clinton's critics considered him awful, to the point of labelling him as evil, even though polling data showed that as he left office he had high approval numbers, such that that opinion was shown to be a minority one."
That's NPOV enough for me, a Clinton supporter. It gives both sides.
There are reasons that if that line appeared in Clinton's page it might reasonably be deleted due to the lack of relevance that a small number of people did in fact see Clinton as evil. However, if that line would be retained if it began, "Many of Bill Clinton's critics, such as Ann Coulter,..." then it should be retained without such a citation.
Or things like "the scientific community"...does it really require a citation to say that "Creationism is rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community"? Wouldn't most Creationists admit that was true? How do you cite sources to prove it, though? Depending on context, it might need a statement affirming that some people hold to the belief due to their faith, but again, it shouldn't require a source. Would it make a real difference if one listed a scientist who has been critical of Creationism with a link? That alone wouldn't prove that the "vast majority" held the view.
It comes down to the truth of the statement in question, its relevance, and whether opposing views are presented. That is a looser policy than this page states.
I removed this example; it doesn't seem like a realistic example of what we actually see in Wikipedia. --ESP 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of the recommendations in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words are good, but they are NOT about weasel words.
Weasel words are words that create a false appearance of stating a significant fact (a fact being objectively verifiable at least in theory), but actually either express nothing of a factual nature or express a true-but-trivial (and hence defensible) assertion. It is not about anonymous attribution or unsupported vague assertions.
An example of weasel language would be
"100% effective" sounds like a very high level of effectiveness (assuming that "effectiveness" has a meaningful definition in the context). In fact, that's the highest effectiveness possible. However, by adding the words "up to" before "effective", it totally changes the nature of the statement. The modified language now states that the effectiveness is bounded from the above by 100%, which true but very trivial. --68.238.243.228 12:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the items in the list says:
But I'm wondering if this is better classifed as a synecdoche, since we are not so much assigning human qualities to these ideas but using them to represent scientists or doctors as a whole. This is probably entirely unimportant. Deco 15:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
