Template talk:Weasel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is this needed?

I can't see the point of this template. If you want a page cleaned up, whack a {{cleanup}} on it, and discuss the "weasel" terms on the talk page. Besides, it takes up too much room in the aritcle.--Commander Keane 16:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is needed, desperately needed. Have you read the tagged articles? Izehar (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The template is smaller now, which is more agreeable. If people are fixing these articles then I guess I can live with it, even though it's not neccessary.--Commander Keane 19:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just made it longer (sorry, Commander Keane!), but not deeper. My reason was that I didn't like the wording. In addition to the made-up word "weaselness", it had problems with the actual meaning. To say that the weaselness is disputed means that some readers doubt the weaselness of the article, when in fact I presume that the purpose of the template is to say that some readers think the article does contain weasel words. Anyway, I've modified it. AnnH ^(talk) 20:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

After the Locke Cole revision the template is twice as big and has a stop sign on it. I don't think readers should be faced with a stop sign - you may as well dump a stop sign on the main page warning the Wikipedia is a work in progress. In my opinion, lets do the servers a favour and have no image at all.--Commander Keane 20:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The stop sign is kind of a standard amongst the POV/Dispute templates which is why I went with that. The other reason I changed it is I couldn't tell from the little picture that it was a weasel. :P I also wanted to revert past a number of newbie edits since the original template was (IMO) written more professionally. —Locke Cole 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

This is a potentially very helpful template. The credibility of Wikiedia has been under attack recently more than ever, and the replacement of weasel words with cited sources is a good way to prevent false information from damaging our reputation. However, I think this template could use a few changes.

• The template might be more appropriate on talk pages rather than at the top of articles. The urgency of the template is not as great as {{AfD}} and {{Protected}} and weasel words are not serious cleanup issues that need to be fixed as soon as possible. In fact, weasel words are perfectly acceptable in some cases. The ongoing discussion at TfD is evidence that many users do not like this template showing up at the top of article pages. Maybe it should instead be placed on talk pages.
• New users might be intimidated by the stop sign, which is associated with vandalism warnings and blocked users. I favor the restoration of the cute little weasel or some other light-hearted image. Actually, the template would serve its purpose with no image at all.
• If the template remains at the top of articles, then its size should probably be reduced for aesthetic purposes. Most articles look better without a large template at the top. --TantalumTelluride 21:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ideally this template would have the same look as {{Disputed}} and {{POV}}. The stop sign/hand is an alert to readers that there may be issues with how the article is currently presented. Especially in the case of weasel words, I believe it's important they read the notice and would strongly discourage using cutesy images or photographs. (This also makes it look unprofessional alongside the other templates I mentioned). If there's a way to reword it so it consumes less space and looks more like the other dispute/pov templates, I'm open to that. =) I also think the coloring of the template is inappropriate right now; it uses talk page colors when this is clearly something that needs to be in the article. —Locke Cole 21:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Here's a proposal to make it look more standard with {{POV}}, {{Disputed}} and {{TotallyDisputed}}–

And some alternate colors–

I've basically truncated the wording. I do like the more verbose description, but it'll only make the template large and imposing (which seems to be the major consistant complaint so far). —Locke Cole 21:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I like this design much better (even though it lacks Image:WEASEL.JPG). Interested users can follow the links to find further information. --TantalumTelluride 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I also like leaving out the part about original research. Although it is possible that some weasel terms mask original research, many users are not aware that they should be avoiding them. The assertion might lead to hard feelings and misunderstandings, and new users especially might be offended if they are accused of violating a guideline in one of their first edits. --TantalumTelluride 22:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote for the red. It's the best out of all the past/current/proposed templates. Less obnoxious, but still informative. -- Dpark 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What about ditching the stop sign.

This article contains weasel words, which may compromise its neutrality.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

I think the stop sign is too harsh. --L1AM 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My proposal

I think the word weasel is extremely unprofessional. How does this look

Weasel words This article contains personal opinions that are potentially prejudicial to the article's neutrality and may in fact be disguising original research. Please take steps to source any weasel terms that you find in the article. For further information, please see discussion on the talk page.

--DuKot 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any other words we could use in place of weasel ?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the word weasel. After all, we have a guideline called Avoid weasel terms. Besides, wouldn't "personal opinions" be the same thing as {{POV}}? --TantalumTelluride 22:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that "Weasel words" perfectly represents "personal opinions that are potentially prejudicial to the article's neutrality and may in fact be disguising original research" and it's shorter. Besides, I was more inclined to click on "Weasel words", just to see if the definition met my expection.--Commander Keane 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole thing should go, but at the very least, it's needs reworking. It's far too obtrusive. Additionally, using weasel words as the main text encourages people to say "hmm, what's that?" and click the link. They they find out what they shouldn't be doing when they edit. On the other hand, the current generic attributions makes people's eyes glaze over and they ignore the thing. Personal opinions isn't necessarily right at all, so that's the worst of the options. The versions in the next topic up are the best, I think. -- Dpark 16:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten it to be smaller, most importantly. It was too large. I've also written it as a messagebox, instead of hardcoding the html. I did not use the phrase "weasel word", because apparently some think that's too inflammatory. I also reduced the text in it quite a bit. We don't need a thesis about citations and verifiability. Give the reader the basic information, and let them click a link it they need more information. -- Dpark 20:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Lifeisunfair, I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'll ask here. Why did you feel the need to revert the background to that color? (beige, yellow, whatever) I'm sorry, but on the default monobook skin, the background is white, and the beige you chose simply does not mesh well. The rose color is also more of warning color, a "stop reading the article and read this first" color. (Whereas the beige simply looks out of place). Do you have some non-obvious reason that you reverted? -- Dpark 23:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm using the default MonoBook skin, and the template looks fine. If it appears remotely yellow on your screen, something is very wrong on your end.

On Wikipedia, the various shades of pink are used to indicate the presence of allegedly non-NPOV material. Meanwhile, the beige coloring is used for several templates that either assert non-factuality (which might be unintentional) or that fall somewhere between the categories of "non-NPOV accusation" and "cleanup request." This tag is an example of the latter type, because the inclusion of generic attributions can result from bias, sloppy writing, original research, or some combination thereof.

Here are some other examples: {{disputed}}, {{hoax}}, {{contradict}}

Incidentally, I endorse your decision to significantly reduce the template's verbosity. I would have done so myself, but I wasn't sure if this change was backed by consensus. (I'm still not sure, but it has my support.) —Lifeisunfair 00:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to say that this falls into the realm of non-NPOV material. We're specifically mentioning compromised neutrality in the text. If non-NPOV stuff is pink, shouldn't this one be? It's not the end of the world if it stays beige, but I think the pink meshes better, as well as providing morre "look at me" than the beige.

No, we didn't really have a consensus on reducing the text, but I rarely find that attempting a concensus accomplishes much for regular editing. (Deletions, yes, a concensus is great.) I find it's generally best to just be bold and make the changes. If it turns out that there are objections, then it's worth trying for a concensus.

As far as beige looking yellow, beige is well within the spectrum of yellow. It shouldn't be surprising that a block of beige on a white background might appear yellow. It shouldn't look banana-yellow, but definitely still a yellow.

-- Dpark 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some have said that this template serves a valid purpose, and should be kept. Others believe that the template is undesirable, and should be deleted. Still others have stated that deletion isn't a severe enough punishment to inflict upon this monstrosity's creators, who should be arrested, tried, convicted and executed for crimes against Wikipedia.

In the preceding paragraph, all three sentences contain generic attributions. Only the third, however, is an attempt to sneak non-NPOV text into the hypothetical article. The first two sentences are factually accurate and collectively present pertinent information from a neutral viewpoint. The problem is that their lack of specific attributions forces the reader to take our word for it.

If this were an actual notable debate, simply adding the names of a well-known proponent and opponent of this template (ideally accompanied by external links to such remarks) would render the first two sentences acceptable. That's a cleanup issue, not a non-NPOV issue. The text mentions that generic attributions "may compromise [the article's] neutrality" (emphasis added), because that's our primary concern. If the sentences are merely somewhat sloppily written, that isn't such a big deal.

To me, the coloring is a pale shade of grayish brown, without even a hint of yellow. —Lifeisunfair 17:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, it's a gray area, I guess. It doesn't necessarily fall into non-NPOV area. I'm not going to fight you for the color, but I still think it looks out of place on a white background. (But then, I think the disputed template looks out of place as well).

As for you not seeing how beige is in the yellow spectrum, you previously had it set to #F7F7DE, and it's now 'beige' (or #F5F5DC). The red and green components are clearly dominant (by #19 or 25 in both cases). That makes it a yellow color (pure yellow would be #FFFF00). Brown, on the other hand, has a stronger red component: #A52A2A for HTML brown (which is really a bit too red), #964B00 for the color shown in Brown. If you lighten brown enough, you'll get a red or orange, not beige. If you seriously can't see how it's a yellow, you might want to have your eyes checked. (I'm not trying to be a jerk. You might actually be slightly colorblind.)

-- Dpark 19:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that in HTML, the word "beige" is supposed to represent a hexadecimal value of #F5F5DC. Nonetheless, the template's background color is registering as #F7F7DE. (I just loaded the template in both Firefox and Internet Explorer, and gauged the color via both Photoshop and Color Detector.)

I don't dispute the technical similarity to yellow, but I do dispute that the resultant product is yellow in appearance. By definition, "beige" is "a light grayish brown or yellowish brown to grayish yellow." In this instance, I'm seeing "a light grayish brown." And for the record, I have been checked for color blindness on more than one occasion (as a standard procedure). I suppose that we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for what color to use for the template, I have no particular attachment to this one. As long as {{weasel}}'s coloring matches {{disputed}}, {{hoax}} and {{contradict}}, (and does not match the various NPOV templates) I wouldn't object to the selection of a sensible alternative color for all four.

How about gray? (What could be more appropriate for a template that covers a gray area?)

—Lifeisunfair 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure gray is really an improvement.  :) We can just leave the color alone for now, since, as you pointed out, it's matching some others. -- Dpark 22:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words vs Generic Attributions

One person on the TfD page commented that the current template is "incomprehensible". While I don't agree with that, I do feel that "generic attributions" is rather vague.

I feel that weasel words is quite descriptive, and just a better term in general.

1. It's memorable. People remember what a weasel word is.
2. It invites clicking. People who don't know what a weasel word is are likely to click and read (and thus learn how not to write). I don't feel "generic attributions" encourages the same curiosity, specifically because it sounds unnecessarily stuffy.
3. It's consistent. It's what we call them everywhere else. e.g. Weasel word, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. There is no Generic attribution.
4. It's what people know them as, because it's what other people call them. Dictionaries define "weasel word". e.g. dictionary.com: weasel word Google has 274,000 hits for "weasel words".

Some people have said it's inflammatory, but I disagree.

1. There's limit to how gentle we can be. You could also argue that it's "inflammatory" to say that someone is pushing their opinions or completely wrong. In the grand scheme of thing, saying "hey, you shouldn't just say some people and think it's okay" isn't especially harsh.
2. It's better to be straight with people. It's not fun being told that you're wrong, or that something's wrong with your writing, but it's better to just say it and not try to sugar coat it. If something's wrong, it's best to confront it head on, and get it fixed.
3. People can click the link and get the context. If they read "weasel words" and are offended, because they don't know what it means, they can click the link and read about it. Again, this encourages learning, which is always a plus.
4. This isn't for authors. No one is going to be slapping this onto user pages as a way of telling a particular author that they should quit the business. This template is for articles, articles which are, by and large, written by many contributors. Placing this on an article isn't calling out a single author. It's not even for the authors, at least in theory. It's for the readers. But when the authors see it, if they are reasonable people at all, they'll read and learn, and hopefully fix the article. If they aren't reasonable, they'd be just as angry about Template:cleanup being slapped onto "their" articles, and there's no pleasing those people anyway.

Opinions, please. Who agrees, disagrees, has a better idea?

-- Dpark 20:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"One person on the TfD page commented that the current template is 'incomprehensible'. While I don't agree with that, I do feel that 'generic attributions' is rather vague. I feel that weasel words is quite descriptive, and just a better term in general."

Obviously, I disagree. "Generic attributions" accurately describes the concept in plain English. "Weasel words" and "weasel terms" are figures of speech with connotations other than the applicable one. Clarity and accuracy should be our top priorities.

"It's memorable. People remember what a weasel word is."

People needn't have any prior recollection of what a generic attribution is, because it's spelled out for them.

"It invites clicking. People who don't know what a weasel word is are likely to click and read (and thus learn how not to write)."

People who don't know what a weasel word is are likely to view it as a derogatory term (which it is). This includes authors, who are likely to misinterpret the tag as an insinuation that they (and/or their writing) are sneaky or treacherous.

"I don't feel 'generic attributions' encourages the same curiosity, specifically because it sounds unnecessarily stuffy."

I disagree, and I don't believe that we should be placing style before substance.

"It's consistent. It's what we call them everywhere else. e.g. Weasel word, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. There is no Generic attribution."

The NPOV tutorial advises editors to "make only careful use of generic attributions" (referred to as "weasel words" in the following sentence).

As I mentioned in an edit summary, the "weasel" terminology is acceptable in the context of a page explaining the meaning.

"It's what people know them as, because it's what other people call them. Dictionaries define 'weasel word'. e.g. dictionary.com: weasel word Google has 274,000 hits for 'weasel words'."

You acknowledged that some people "don't know what a weasel word is." Anyone familiar with the words "generic" and "attribution" can comprehend the phrase "generic attribution" (including a non-native English speaker, for whom English idioms might not translate well).

"Some people have said it's inflammatory, but I disagree. There's limit to how gentle we can be. You could also argue that it's 'inflammatory' to say that someone is pushing their opinions or completely wrong."

Neither template is nearly that harsh.

"In the grand scheme of thing, saying 'hey, you shouldn't just say some people and think it's okay' isn't especially harsh."

Being accused of something negative might upset someone, but this is less likely if he/she doesn't misunderstand the accusation. (I'd rather be told that my writing is in need of correction than be called a "weasel.")

"It's better to be straight with people. It's not fun being told that you're wrong, or that something's wrong with your writing, but it's better to just say it and not try to sugar coat it. If something's wrong, it's best to confront it head on, and get it fixed."

1. Again, I believe that the best way to convey a concept is via straightforward English, not via a semi-popular, non-literal expression.

2 You're assuming that this template will be applied strictly to articles that require improvement. In fact, it undoubtedly will be added to articles in which the generic attributions are appropriate. Wikipedians often insert such tags not because they believe that something should be changed (in which case many will simply change it), but because they aren't sure (and desire community feedback).

"People can click the link and get the context. If they read 'weasel words' and are offended, because they don't know what it means, they can click the link and read about it. Again, this encourages learning, which is always a plus."

In the meantime, someone might jump to the wrong conclusion, leading him/her to post an angry rant on the talk page of the article or inserter of the tag. If another editor is similarly temperamental, this might provoke a very nasty argument. This sort of thing shouldn't occur, but it does.

"This isn't for authors. No one is going to be slapping this onto user pages as a way of telling a particular author that they should quit the business. This template is for articles, articles which are, by and large, written by many contributors. Placing this on an article isn't calling out a single author."

Many Wikipedia articles (especially relatively new ones) have only one author (or one major author).

"It's not even for the authors, at least in theory. It's for the readers. But when the authors see it, if they are reasonable people at all, they'll read and learn, and hopefully fix the article. If they aren't reasonable, they'd be just as angry about Template:cleanup being slapped onto 'their' articles, and there's no pleasing those people anyway."

Again, being told that one's work could use improvement is not nearly as insulting as being told (or believing that one has been told) that one's actions are weasel-like. —Lifeisunfair 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. "Generic attributions" accurately describes the concept in plain English. "Weasel words" and "weasel terms" are figures of speech with connotations other than the applicable one. Clarity and accuracy should be our top priorities.

I don't think those words really connote too terribly much. It doesn't say the person who wrote this is a weasel. That would carry a lot of strong connotations.

People needn't have any prior recollection of what a generic attribution is, because it's spelled out for them.

No it isn't. The template doesn't spell it out (and shouldn't, because it would increase the template's size). Spelled out would be quotations, statements, or statistics attributed to generic entities. "Attributions" is rather vague, because it doesn't clarify what is being attributed or to whom.

People who don't know what a weasel word is are likely to view it as a derogatory term (which it is). This includes authors, who are likely to misinterpret the tag as an insinuation that they (and/or their writing) are sneaky or treacherous.

Why do you say that they're likely to view it as a derogatory term? Has anyone seen this tag and then ranted on a talk page about how insulting it is? Too often people assume something is going to be seen as highly negative without real evidence. In any event, this is still the term used in the policy. If it's the correct term there, why is is not the correct term here? (Yes, they've already had this discussion there.)

I disagree, and I don't believe that we should be placing style before substance.

The substance is the same. This is purely about style.

The NPOV tutorial advises editors to "make only careful use of generic attributions" (referred to as "weasel words" in the following sentence).

Okay, so you have one example. I have more. Including, again, the very policy we (and the NPOV tutorial) link to.

You acknowledged that some people "don't know what a weasel word is." Anyone familiar with the words "generic" and "attribution" can comprehend the phrase "generic attribution" (including a non-native English speaker, for whom English idioms might not translate well).

Not true, as I stated a few lines up. Neither what is being attributed nor what it's being attributed to is clarified. In this context, "generic attribution" is not very clear at all (not even to native speakers). In the middle of an article about attributing info to the correct sources, yes, "generic attributions" is perfectly clear, but not in a little box with no context. It's no clearer than "weasel words" (and I would argue that it's actually less clear). And I seriously doubt that "attribution" is a word most non-native speakers are familiar with. I doubly doubt that they could figure it out from the context.

You're either underestimating or underselling just how rare the phrase "generic attribution" really is. As I said, "weasel words" has 270,000 hits on google. "Generic attribution" has 327 (add the 's' and there's even fewer).

Neither template is nearly that harsh.

I did exaggerate the templates somewhat, but that's basically what they say. One says that the factual accuracy is in question (i.e. someones's wrong), while the other states that it's not neutral (i.e. someone's pushing an opinion).

Being accused of something negative might upset someone, but this is less likely if he/she doesn't misunderstand the accusation. (I'd rather be told that my writing is in need of correction than be called a "weasel.")

You aren't being called a weasel, anymore than someone who's writing gets tagged with disputed is being called a liar. The writing is being called into question in both cases, not the writer.

1. Again, I believe that the best way to convey a concept is via straightforward English, not via a semi-popular, non-literal expression.

Again, I say it's not straightforward, but vague.

2 You're assuming that this template will be applied strictly to articles that require improvement. In fact, it undoubtedly will be added to articles in which the generic attributions are appropriate. Wikipedians often insert such tags not because they believe that something should be changed (in which case many will simply change it), but because they aren't sure (and desire community feedback).

I don't see how that's at all relevant. The meaning of the banner is the same either way. If it's inserted incorrectly, it should be removed. Neither text is flattering to the incorrectly-labelled article. (I don't believe random banner insertion is especially common, either, but that really isn't relevant, either.)

In the meantime, someone might jump to the wrong conclusion, leading him/her to post an angry rant on the talk page of the article or inserter of the tag. If another editor is similarly temperamental, this might provoke a very nasty argument. This sort of thing shouldn't occur, but it does.

We haven't seen any evidence of this. You're making rather huge assumptions about the temperments of authors here. If the authors were as tempermental as you assert, I believe even the cleanup tag would evoke the same response.

Many Wikipedia articles (especially relatively new ones) have only one author (or one major author).

I suppose this is somewhat true. Still, there's a difference betweem criticizing someone's writing and criticising the person. And again, the substance of the two banners is the same, and carries the same "insult".

Again, being told that one's work could use improvement is not nearly as insulting as being told (or believing that one has been told) that one's actions are weasel-like.

You're again blurring the line between the article and the author. The tag doesn't say that intentional subterfuge was employed. It simply says that the article contains weasel words. If it's true, why sugar coat it?

-- Dpark 23:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think those words really connote too terribly much."

I was referring to the applications of "weasel word" that do not relate to generic attributions, such as the oxymoronic "organized spontaneity" example.

"It doesn't say 'the person who wrote this is a weasel.' That would carry a lot of strong connotations."

It's reasonable to assume that someone might jump to such a conclusion.

"The template doesn't spell it out (and shouldn't, because it would increase the template's size). Spelled out would be 'quotations, statements, or statistics attributed to generic entities'."

I'm not arguing that we should be that thorough, but merely that we should use literal English.

"'Attributions' is rather vague, because it doesn't clarify what is being attributed or to whom."

It isn't as specific a phrase "quotations, statements, or statistics," but that's beside the point.

"Why do you say that they're likely to view it as a derogatory term?"

By likely, I don't mean "more likely than not." I mean that if this template become widely used, it's likely that a significant minority of editors will misinterpret the word "weasel" in this manner.

"Has anyone seen this tag and then ranted on a talk page about how insulting it is?"

I don't know, but I'm under the impression that this template has seen relatively little use.

"In any event, this is still the term used in the policy. If it's the correct term there, why is is not the correct term here? (Yes, they've already had this discussion there.)"

As I noted previously, it's my opinion that it's appropriate to use the phrases "weasel word" and "weasel term" on pages that define their meaning.

"The substance is the same."

Only to someone who's familiar with the phrase "weasel word" or "weasel term."

"This is purely about style."

I disagree. I believe that it's about clarity.

"Okay, so you have one example. I have more. Including, again, the very policy we (and the NPOV tutorial) link to."

Again, that's a different context.

"Neither what is being attributed nor what it's being attributed to is clarified. In this context, 'generic attribution' is not very clear at all (not even to native speakers). In the middle of an article about attributing info to the correct sources, yes, 'generic attributions' is perfectly clear, but not in a little box with no context. It's no clearer than 'weasel words' (and I would argue that it's actually less clear)."

How is the phrase "weasel words" (which can be applied to entirely irrelevant situations) clearer?

"And I seriously doubt that 'attribution' is a word most non-native speakers are familiar with. I doubly doubt that they could figure it out from the context."

A non-native English speaker can easily translate the words "generic" and "attribution" to his/her native language, and have a fairly decent idea of the phrase's meaning (or, at the very worst, not be led to believe that it's a mean-spirited insult). What would happen is he/she were to translate the word "weasel"?

"You're either underestimating or underselling just how rare the phrase 'generic attribution' really is."

I'm not asserting that the phrase "generic attribution" is common; I'm saying that it's easily interpreted by anyone capable of understanding the words "generic" and "attribution" (both of which are common).

"As I said, "weasel words" has 270,000 hits on google."

I don't dispute the fact that the phrase is fairly popular.

"I did exaggerate the templates somewhat, but that's basically what they say. One says that the factual accuracy is in question (i.e. someones's wrong), while the other states that it's not neutral (i.e. someone's pushing an opinion)."

Actually, but state that the condition of the article is "disputed." {{Weasel}} states that the article definitely contains the entities in question, so we need to be especially careful in deciding how to refer to said entities.

"You aren't being called a weasel, anymore than someone who's writing gets tagged with disputed is being called a liar. The writing is being called into question in both cases, not the writer."

I know that, and you know that, but will everyone else know that?

"I don't see how that's at all relevant. The meaning of the banner is the same either way."

You stated that "it's not fun being told that you're wrong, or that something's wrong with your writing, but it's better to just say it and not try to sugar coat it." I'm pointing out that in some cases, the person isn't wrong. The terms "weasel word" and "weasel term" automatically convey a negative connotation, while "generic attribution" is neutral.

"If it's inserted incorrectly, it should be removed."

Insertion into any article that contains generic attributions (or whatever you want to call them) is not wrong, as long as the responsible party believes that they might be inappropriate; he/she needn't be 100% positive.

"Neither text is flattering to the incorrectly-labelled article."

Do you honestly believe that the phrase "generic attributions" is as potentially insulting as the phrase "weasel words"?

"I don't believe random banner insertion is especially common, either, but that really isn't relevant, either."

Who said anything about "random banner insertion"?

"If the authors were as tempermental as you assert, I believe even the cleanup tag would evoke the same response."

The {{cleanup}} tag includes no instances of the word "weasel." —Lifeisunfair 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the applications of "weasel word" that do not relate to generic attributions, such as the oxymoronic "organized spontaneity" example.

In the context of wikipedia, "weasels words" have a specific meaning.

It's reasonable to assume that someone might jump to such a conclusion.

Why is that reasonable? Are wikipedia authors really that childish?

I'm not arguing that we should be that thorough, but merely that we should use literal English.

It isn't as specific a phrase "quotations, statements, or statistics," but that's beside the point.

That is the point. Weasel words, in the context of wikipedia, is specific. "Generic attributions" is unspecific and vague.

By likely, I don't mean "more likely than not." I mean that if this template become widely used, it's likely that a significant minority of editors will misinterpret the word "weasel" in this manner.

We have no evidence of this. Again, I ask, are wikipedia editors really that childish?

I don't know, but I'm under the impression that this template has seen relatively little use.

So there's no basis for such an assumption.

As I noted previously, it's my opinion that it's appropriate to use the phrases "weasel word" and "weasel term" on pages that define their meaning.

So we should give up consistency and recognizability (and I would argue, clarity) for the off-chance that someone's going to go into a tizzy? If someone flips out, tell them to click the link and read about it. Problem solved. Anyone who's so unreasonable is not going to last very long on Wikipedia, because they're going to flip out when someone reverts one of their edits, too.

Only to someone who's familiar with the phrase "weasel word" or "weasel term."

Or anyone capable of clicking a link.

I disagree. I believe that it's about clarity.

Actually, I guess we agree here. I believe that "weasel words" is clearer. It's got a specific meaning on wikipedia. (Someone on the TfD page also said he felt it was clearer, which is what prompted me to post there to tell people to chime in here.)

Again, that's a different context.

It's really not a significantly different context. We should be consistent throughout wikipedia.

How is the phrase "weasel words" (which can be applied to entirely irrelevant situations) clearer?

Because it has a specific, defined meaning on Wikipedia. I'll point out again that "generic attributions" is just as vague without context.

A non-native English speaker can easily translate the words "generic" and "attribution" to his/her native language, and have a fairly decent idea of the phrase's meaning (or, at the very worst, not be led to believe that it's a mean-spirited insult). What would happen is he/she were to translate the word "weasel"?

Anyone studying another language is going to know that they often can't translate idioms directly. Should we cease use of English-specific idioms just so it's more accessible to non-native speakers? They will figure it out a different way (perhaps by clicking the link).

I'm not asserting that the phrase "generic attribution" is common; I'm saying that it's easily interpreted by anyone capable of understanding the words "generic" and "attribution" (both of which are common).

I don't think it's easily interpretted without further context. Again, what's being attributed and to whom are both entirely vague. And if they're going to have to click the link anyway, we might as well have consistency.

Actually, but state that the condition of the article is "disputed." {{Weasel}} states that the article definitely contains the entities in question, so we need to be especially careful in deciding how to refer to said entities.

On the one hand, I do agree that this is somewhat of a more specific assertion, but it's also less accusative. The disputed/pov/etc tags all imply that someone thinks someone is fiddling with the truth, either lying or pushing POV. On the other hand, this one merely says that it contains phrases, statistics, facts, etc. which are of ill-defined origin. It doesn't necessarily mean it's even remotely intentional. Weasel words are common because they are easy to toss in accidentally (which the page states). One could argue that we need be less concerned about how we phrase it, because weasel words don't necessarily implying incorrect info or opinion pushing.

I know that, and you know that, but will everyone else know that?

If they don't, then they can click the link, and learn. The wikipedia authors who stick around are reasonable people. The ones who get upset will get upset about even a cleanup tag. Have you never seen an author remove a "cleanup" or "tfd" or "disputed" tag as soon as it's added, ignoring the discussion completely? These people are going to get upset no matter what. There's no point in trying to please them.

You stated that "it's not fun being told that you're wrong, or that something's wrong with your writing, but it's better to just say it and not try to sugar coat it." I'm pointing out that in some cases, the person isn't wrong. The terms "weasel word" and "weasel term" automatically convey a negative connotation, while "generic attribution" is neutral.

It's not at any more neutral at all. The banner says that it may compromise the article's neutrality. Whether we call them "generic attributions" or "weasel words", the brunt of the blow is the fact that they might compromise the neutrality of the article. That doesn't change, no matter what we call them. If it turns out that the text isn't wrong, discuss it, and then remove the tag.

Insertion into any article that contains generic attributions (or whatever you want to call them) is not wrong, as long as the responsible party believes that they might be inappropriate; he/she needn't be 100% positive.

He/she should be pretty sure. Just seeing the words "some people say" and throwing the tag on is not appropriate. But it doesn't really matter. It can be discussed, and if appropriate, removed. None of this matters to the discussion.

Do you honestly believe that the phrase "generic attributions" is as potentially insulting as the phrase "weasel words"?

You really think "weasel words" is all that insulting? Come on, you're talking about a potentiality. It's already too abstract to be comparing to other "potential insults". But again, the blow is from the hit on the neutrality, not whether we call it a "weasel word" or a "generic attribution".

The {{cleanup}} tag includes no instances of the word "weasel."

Are you joking? No, it contains no instances of the word "weasel". But do you really think that being called names is the only thing that ever causes people to feel insulted? Is it just comparisons to small rodents that riles people up? Of course not. Telling people that their work is weak ("this article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality.") is also potentially insulting, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't say it.

I will again point out that there is no mention of anyone being a weasel. The mere use of the word is not offensive. It needs context to be offensive. i.e. "Bob is a weasely little man!" is quite insulting to Bob, were he to overhear, whereas "Bob has a weasel." would not be. If the context of "weasel words" is truly vague to people who don't recognize the phrase (and I agree that it is, though not really more vague than "generic attributions"), shouldn't their natural reaction be to attempt to clarify the context, rather than to get upset?

You're seriously overstating the insulting power of the word. The basic text of the banner is the same, either way. The only question is the way we refer to certain words. Again, the blow of the banner is that we call into question the neutrality of the article, not that we use the phrase "weasel words".

And again, the substance of the two banners is the same, and carries the same "insult" . . . It simply says that the article contains weasel words. If it's true, why sugar coat it?

-- Dpark 15:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"In the context of wikipedia, 'weasels words' have a specific meaning."

I've been a Wikipedia editor since February of this year (and a regular editor since April), and I wasn't aware of that until this past Tuesday. I was familiar with the phrase "weasel word" (and I knew that it had nothing to do with referring to a person as a "weasel"), but I was not aware that Wikipedia used a stricter definition than one would find in a dictionary. (The Wikipedia connotation certainly falls within the dictionary definition, but it isn't nearly as broad.)

Upon encountering the template for the first time, I did click on the phrase weasel words to gain the required context. I also would have clicked on generic attributions, however. Not everyone would click on either phrase, and it's my opinion that the latter is less likely to offend someone who doesn't.

Furthermore, the fact that the phrases "weasel words" and "weasel terms" mean something special on Wikipedia renders your aforementioned Google hit count irrelevant.

"Why is that reasonable? Are wikipedia authors really that childish?"

Most aren't, but some are. I don't condone such an attitude, but it exists.

"Weasel words, in the context of wikipedia, is specific."

What percentage of Wikipedia users do you believe is familiar with the guideline in question? Upon viewing the template for the first time, I didn't understand exactly what was being expressed (despite the fact that I was familiar with the phrase "weasel words"). Had it contained the phrase "generic attributions," I would have understood perfectly.

"'Generic attributions' is unspecific and vague."

I don't see how. In the context of an article, how many different meanings could this possibly have?

"So we should give up consistency and recognizability (and I would argue, clarity) for the off-chance that someone's going to go into a tizzy? If someone flips out, tell them to click the link and read about it. Problem solved."

You're ignoring my assertion that "generic attributions" is a clearer wording. You disagree with this opinion, but that doesn't mean that you should pretend that I haven't argued it.

"Anyone who's so unreasonable is not going to last very long on Wikipedia, because they're going to flip out when someone reverts one of their edits, too."

There are varying degrees of sensitivity. I don't believe that having an edit reverted is as offensive as being called a "weasel" (or mistakenly believing that this has occurred).

"It's really not a significantly different context."

It is in the respect that the contextual meaning is explained on the same page.

"We should be consistent throughout wikipedia."

Then why did the template link to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms with the phrase "weasel words"? (Yes, I realize that the latter phrase is mentioned in the first sentence.)

Perhaps the guideline's name should be changed. (There's no reason why the discussion can't be renewed.)

"I'll point out again that 'generic attributions' is just as vague without context."

I disagree.

"Anyone studying another language is going to know that they often can't translate idioms directly."

This particular idiom is unusual in the respect that its key word also is frequently used in the same language as a personal insult.

"Should we cease use of English-specific idioms just so it's more accessible to non-native speakers?"

No, but I see no reason to use an idiom where a literal phrase is more effective (in my opinion).

"I don't think it's easily interpretted without further context. Again, what's being attributed and to whom are both entirely vague."

The fact that the individual possibilities are unspecified doesn't mean that the phrase is vague; it means that it's broad enough to encompass all of the various situations to which the template can be applied. Assuming that the reader is familiar with its Wikipedia-specific meaning, the term "weasel words" also fails to explicitly refer to "quotations, statements, or statistics," so I don't understand what distinction you're drawing.

"The disputed/pov/etc tags all imply that someone thinks someone is fiddling with the truth, either lying or pushing POV."

That simply isn't true. The above scenarios are possible, but there are other reasons why an article might contain factually inaccurate or slanted information. Factual inaccuracies can result from honest mistakes, and non-NPOV writing can be unintentional.

"One could argue that we need be less concerned about how we phrase it, because weasel words don't necessarily implying incorrect info or opinion pushing."

In my assessment, the fact that this condition can be unintentional (or even appropriate) is a good reason to avoid using the word "weasel" in a relatively out-of-context fashion.

"It's not at any more neutral at all. The banner says that it may compromise the article's neutrality. Whether we call them 'generic attributions' or 'weasel words', the brunt of the blow is the fact that they might compromise the neutrality of the article. That doesn't change, no matter what we call them."

Again, you're assuming that the reader is familiar with the contextual meaning of the phrase "weasel words." Being told that an article might not be neutral because it contains generic attributions is considerably less insulting than being told that an article might not be neutral because you're a weasel.

"You really think 'weasel words' is all that insulting?"

To me? No. To someone unfamiliar with the term? Quite possibly.

"Come on, you're talking about a potentiality."

Your point being?

"No, it contains no instances of the word 'weasel'. But do you really think that being called names is the only thing that ever causes people to feel insulted?"

No. I think that it's one of the things that cause people to feel insulted.

"If the context of 'weasel words' is truly vague to people who don't recognize the phrase (and I agree that it is, though not really more vague than 'generic attributions'), shouldn't their natural reaction be to attempt to clarify the context, rather than to get upset?"

Should that be their natural reaction? Of course. Will it always be? Of course not.

"Again, the blow of the banner is that we call into question the neutrality of the article, not that we use the phrase 'weasel words."

The template's text indicates that the article's neutrality may be compromised, not that it definitely is. It states that the article contains [fill in the blank], not that merely that it may. —Lifeisunfair 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to address every line again, because much of this is just circles now.

I was familiar with the phrase "weasel word" (and I knew that it had nothing to do with referring to a person as a "weasel"), but I was not aware that Wikipedia used a stricter definition than one would find in a dictionary. (The Wikipedia connotation certainly falls within the dictionary definition, but it isn't nearly as broad.)

Wikipedia does use the term specifically for what this tag refers to, though. Some people might not know what it measn, but at least it's consistent.

Furthermore, the fact that the phrases "weasel words" and "weasel terms" mean something special on Wikipedia renders your aforementioned Google hit count irrelevant.

I feel that's incorrect. The Google count points out that people do know the term, and at the veryleast, should know that it's not offensive. In your own words: (and I knew that it had nothing to do with referring to a person as a "weasel")

I don't see how. In the context of an article, how many different meanings could this possibly have?

I don't know. What I do know is when it changed, I stared at it for a few seconds before I understood what it was saying, and I was already familiar with the tag (though not the new wording). I feel that it's definitely vague.

There are varying degrees of sensitivity. I don't believe that having an edit reverted is as offensive as being called a "weasel" (or mistakenly believing that this has occurred).

Edit wars start because of reverts. Clearly people find it offensive. But there's some minimum level of maturity we have to expect from people. We can't stop reverting just to spare feelings. And we aren't calling anyone a weasel here. Again, I feel we need to appeal to a minimum level of maturity. If people cannot take the time to read the link, or to stop and think for a second and realize it's not saying "you're a weasel", then I feel that they will not be useful contributors anyway, because 1) they're too immature to get along in this rather brusk environment, and 2) their reading comprehension is sorely lacking.

Then why did the template link to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms with the phrase "weasel words"? (Yes, I realize that the latter phrase is mentioned in the first sentence.)

You're seriously just nitpicking. As you said, it uses both in the very first sentence, and treats them as perfect synonyms. But, if you prefer the term "weasel phrases", then by all means, we can use that.

Perhaps the guideline's name should be changed.

I disagree, but in any event, this isn't the place for that discussion.

This particular idiom is unusual in the respect that its key word also is frequently used in the same language as a personal insult.

I'm not sure this is at all unusual. Regardless, I still feel we should expect some minimum maturity level from authors.

No, but I see no reason to use an idiom where a literal phrase is more effective (in my opinion).

I strongly disagree that it's more effective, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it's not less consistent.

The fact that the individual possibilities are unspecified doesn't mean that the phrase is vague; it means that it's broad enough to encompass all of the various situations to which the template can be applied. Assuming that the reader is familiar with its Wikipedia-specific meaning, the term "weasel words" also fails to explicitly refer to "quotations, statements, or statistics," so I don't understand what distinction you're drawing.

"Weasel terms" refers to a specific class of phrases (if we accept the definition given on WP:AWT. On the other hand, lots of things could classify as "generic attributions". The picture caption "Still life drawn by a street artist" is technically a generic attribution, because a specific "street artist" is not given, but it's not really what this tag is for. "Haliaeetus members are excellent flyers" is also technically a generic attribution, but it's again, not what this tag is for. Generic attributions can refer to credits for pictures, sources for quotes, characteristics of a genus, etc. It's less specific without context.

I also don't think that "attribution" is a word that most readers will have a strong familiarity with, but I'm not sure. Really, though, how often have you used the word "attribution", or even read it, outside of this template and the associated discussion? (I can only recall a few times, and most of those had a very clear context to give it meaning.)

That simply isn't true. The above scenarios are possible, but there are other reasons why an article might contain factually inaccurate or slanted information.

Exactly, and the fact that an article contains weasel words doesn't at all mean that anyone was acting in a weasel-like manner.

Being told that an article might not be neutral because it contains generic attributions is considerably less insulting than being told that an article might not be neutral because you're a weasel.

How many times are you going to say that the tag accuses people of being a weasel? We both know that's not true.

Your point being?

I already told you my point: It's already too abstract to be comparing to other "potential insults".

Should that be their natural reaction? Of course. Will it always be? Of course not.

The fact that some people are childish doesn't mean we should reduce ourselves to that level, or try to protect them from their own foolishness. (I don't think that the phrase "weasel words" is nearly as likely to offend someone as the assertion that something is wrong with "their" article, though.)

The template's text indicates that the article's neutrality may be compromised, not that it definitely is. It states that the article contains [fill in the blank], not that merely that it may.

Again, if it's the truth, why should we be ashamed of saying it? If it contains weasel words, tell them. If they're appropriate, discuss it and remove the tag. If not, fix it, and remove the tag. If the article does contain weasel words, appropriately or not, we should be able to say so without being afraid someone is going to just to silly conclusions and interpret the tag as a personal insult.

(Hmm, this ended up being a longer response than I wanted.)

--Dpark 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does use the term specifically for what this tag refers to, though."

I understand that.

"Some people might not know what it measn, but at least it's consistent."

No argument there.

"The Google count points out that people do know the term, and at the veryleast, should know that it's not offensive. In your own words: (and I knew that it had nothing to do with referring to a person as a 'weasel')"

I don't dispute the fact that the phrase itself is fairly well known.

"You're seriously just nitpicking. As you said, it uses both in the very first sentence, and treats them as perfect synonyms. But, if you prefer the term 'weasel phrases', then by all means, we can use that."

Actually, I believe that "weasel words" is vastly preferable to "weasel terms"; the former is an actual expression that I've heard and used in real life, while the latter appears to have originated at Wikipedia. In fact, I see no reason not to rename the guideline "Avoid weasel words."

"I strongly disagree that it's more effective, and I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it's not less consistent."

I haven't attempted to argue that, because I don't believe it to be true.

"On the other hand, lots of things could classify as 'generic attributions'. The picture caption 'Still life drawn by a street artist' is technically a generic attribution, because a specific 'street artist' is not given, but it's not really what this tag is for. 'Haliaeetus members are excellent flyers' is also technically a generic attribution, but it's again, not what this tag is for. Generic attributions can refer to credits for pictures, sources for quotes, characteristics of a genus, etc. It's less specific without context."

I must admit that those are valid examples of the phrase's ambiguity. It honestly hadn't occurred to me that "generic attributions" could be interpreted in a manner other than the connotation that I intended. I concede the point.

"I also don't think that 'attribution' is a word that most readers will have a strong familiarity with, but I'm not sure. Really, though, how often have you used the word 'attribution', or even read it, outside of this template and the associated discussion? (I can only recall a few times, and most of those had a very clear context to give it meaning.)"

I'm inclined to believe that the term "attribution" is used more commonly than the term "weasel word," but this of little consequence.

In retrospect, my perception of the word "attribution" probably was colored by the journalism courses in which I've been enrolled over the past three semesters. I'm highly accustomed to using the term in the context addressed by this template, so the de-weaseled sentence seemed entirely unambiguous to me. I apologize for failing to recognize my bias sooner.

In case you're wondering, the concept of "weasel words" has arisen in class once or twice.  :)

"How many times are you going to say that the tag accuses people of being a weasel? We both know that's not true."

I think that I've been rather clear in acknowledging this fact, and in stipulating that such a belief would be a misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

In any case, I now agree that the phrase "generic attributions" is unsuitable. My concerns remain, but unless someone can suggest a viable alternative, "weasel words" is our best bet. —Lifeisunfair 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that "weasel words" is vastly preferable to "weasel terms"; the former is an actual expression that I've heard and used in real life, while the latter appears to have originated at Wikipedia. In fact, I see no reason not to rename the guideline "Avoid weasel words."

I agree with you, and I'm glad to see you moved the guideline.

I'm inclined to believe that the term "attribution" is used more commonly than the term "weasel word," but this of little consequence.

This is actually quite true, at least according to Google. But strangely enough, "attribution" seems feels less common. "Attribute" of course feels familiar, but "attribution" is one of those words that, while I know what it means, I still feel odd using it. It feels forced, or archaic, or something.

In retrospect, my perception of the word "attribution" probably was colored by the journalism courses in which I've been enrolled over the past three semesters. I'm highly accustomed to using the term in the context addressed by this template, so the de-weaseled sentence seemed entirely unambiguous to me. I apologize for failing to recognize my bias sooner.

It happens to us all. I've found myself arguing positions before and later having to recant. It's really difficult to put yourself in someone else's shoes sometimes. I often think something is completely obvious, while others are completely confused.

In any case, I now agree that the phrase "generic attributions" is unsuitable. My concerns remain, but unless someone can suggest a viable alternative, "weasel words" is our best bet.

Woo, we wore you down! :P Seriously, though, if a better alternative comes along, I'll probably support it. -- Dpark 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Informal EVIL poll

Just a quick poll, feel free to add options. Please limit comments to discussion section below, though you can leave a short note with your vote. —Locke Cole 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefer "Weasel Words"

1. Locke Cole 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Dpark 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Agree with what was said above – memorable, invites clicking, consistent, and what people know them as. AnnH ^(talk) 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Crotalus horridus 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Stifle 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Prefer something else

1. Lifeisunfair 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

   In theory, I still would prefer something else, but I now believe that "weasel words" is preferable to the alternative that I introduced. —Lifeisunfair 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I've converted the template over to say "weasel words", now that it's 5:1. If the poll changes direction, then we can of course revisit the change. -- Dpark 16:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

EVIL poll discussion

Comments and responses to votes here, please

• Comment: I prefer terminology other than "weasel words" or "weasel terms," though not necessarily the current "generic attributions" wording. (I'm open to other suggestions.) —Lifeisunfair 01:38/01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • From one of he TfD comments, my reasoning is that the guideline is called "Avoid weasel terms" (or "weasel words"), so it makes sense that any language in this template would similarly use that wording. I haven't read all of the above yet (heh, there's a lot), but would "weasel terms" be less objectionable to you than "weasel words"? Or is your problem with the word "weasel" altogether? —Locke Cole 01:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection is to the use of the word "weasel" within this template, which I believe is potentially inflammatory. I don't object to the use of the word "weasel" within the guideline page, because it contains a detailed explanation of its contextual meaning. To someone unfamiliar with the concept of "weasel words"/"weasel terms," this easily could come across as a personal insult (another common use of the word "weasel"). —Lifeisunfair 01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. You can see the bulk of my problem with "generic attributions" above, but to sum it up, the phrase is vague. Both what is being attributed nor to whom are ill-defined. "Weasel words", on the other hand, has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. It's also more consistent. And it's not insulting (any moreso than "generic attributions", at least). Only the article is in question, not the authors. And just in case, the page clarifies it if there is any confusion. -- Dpark 16:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Replacing the straightforward term with something mealy-mouthed like "generic attributions" is itself a case of weasel words. Crotalus horridus 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To be accurate, it doesn't fit the Wikipedia-specific definition. —Lifeisunfair 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 05:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)