Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Proposed page move to Avoid vague attribution

Why? A less pejorative-sounding name than "weasel words". User:Unforgettableid 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find it listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'd oppose this move; I happen to like the name, and I think after 2+ years as a guideline it's established on Wikipedia.
Please let me know when the proposition has actually been made. --ESP 16:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we have concensus to keep the page here, and we can delete the move box. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the lack of support for moving the page, I've rm'd the box. Regard, Ben Aveling 08:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For and Against

What's the etiquette? to add your name at the beginning or at the end of the list? Looking at the dates, it seems that's there is both. Does it really matter? Those in the know may clarify here and then delete my comment.Would Be Gnostic 15:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of "avoid weasel terms" include:

  1. Martin (but at least a weasely statement is better than an outright POV violation).
  2. User:Ruhrjung (as a rule with exceptions, or course)
  3. DanKeshet (Wikipedia is littered with personal opinions masked as common knowledge)...
  4. UtherSRG (but I don't like the term 'weasel terms')
  5. Rossami
  6. Perl
  7. Rbellin (in agreement with DanKeshet's assessment)
  8. Netoholic
  9. Nimc (in agreement with DanKeshet's assessment)
  10. Kim Bruning 09:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) With all due respect to the honerable opponents: Die weasel terms, die! . Or well, at least people should scrutinise text with weasel-terms extra-carefully, because they are a good natural hideout for POV.
  11. Paranoid 21:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) Looking at the editing patterns, too often the terms are used to "weasel" the negative comment into the article (see recent history of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) for this and my attempt at fixing. The biggest problem is not with the words per se (the Tolstoy example below is fine with me), but with sneaking POV into articles using them.
  12. • Benc • 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Weasel terms can be useful as quick NPOV band-aids, but a band-aid is not a permanent solution
  13. Solemnavalanche They sneak POV in, but worse, they're just plain bad writing. Vague. Trite. Boring to read. Often imprecise. And you can avoid them so easily -- just a few details, a couple of citations make them unneccesary 90% of the time. Why say "some people" when you can say which people? Perhaps "Many believe Brahms to be a great composer," but does a statement like that really belong in a rich, lively, engaging article? In my opinion, no. There are much more interesting things to say about Brahms than that. Perhaps weasel terms are necessary sometimes, but why use them when they aren't? This is an excellent rule of thumb, to be broken when neccesary, as with all style guidelines.
  14. FOo Weasel terms are, almost always, bad and lazy writing. They do serve one useful purpose: they are red flags pointing out where an article needs work! Nothing is "widely believed" or "claimed by many critics" without leaving some record of those beliefs or claims -- and that record can be found and cited. Moreover, we must always be careful of writing "it is thought that" when in fact the only people who think that are the writer and his pals.
  15. --Theodore Kloba 15:52, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) I agree with Benc that "weasel terms" can be useful temporarily. I also agree with UtherSRG that we need a new name for "weasel terms." I like Benc's term, "NPOV band-aid" but since it relies on a trademarked name, I made this template: Template:NPOV-patch
  16. older≠wiser 14:20, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) As a general guideline, I think this is good advice. However, it should not be interpreted as being an absolute principle. I.e., it is a suggestion to avoid relying on weasel terms as lazy way to murkify POV issues rather than an absolute rule that weasel terms should never be used.
  17. Jallan 21:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) Very weak support. Try to avoid that kind of writing if you can. Often I can't and there are cases where these supposed weasel words are the proper thing to use. But throwing this out altogether would be worse. I should be reminded when I am writing such words that there might be a better way, or that such words should be cleansed by being backed up by a reference. Often they can be avoided. Say, for example, "one belief is" instead of "many believe". It seems to me that many voters on both sides here are in fact largely in agreement. What is needed is a better statement.
  18. Mhmm. ugen64 03:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Avoiding weasel words is a good idea that improves our authority and helps find hidden POV — do not use weasel words is a terrible, terrible idea that is impossible to implement. Deco 05:04, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. Calicocat - Weasels mostly speak in the passive voice -- "some say," "it is thought," "critics say" and are most often examples of "stealth-POV." Weasels are an enemy of accuracy and understanding. So many of the pages tagged as POV are replete with them. However, one of the more over used weasel words I've seen is "controversy." Stealth-POV, a subject that deserves a discussion of its own. Please leave the weasels out of articles! Calicocat 02:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Weasel words should be minimized. for the reasons above. It's lazy. It preempts sources and specifics. It's passive voice. The distinctions between "many," "most," "some," "a few," and so on are themselves a kind of meta-weaseling. Often, the whole issue can be circumvented with a source or two. My only quibble is the name. Telling someone "stop using weasel words" is likely to offend them. Dave 07:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Shanes 05:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Deltabeignet - (in agreement with DanKeshet's assessment) Deltabeignet 22:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  24. AI - There is no need for weasel terms, specific references to assertions should be named. If a reference cannot be provided then it should not be in a factual encyclopedia.
  25. NightMonkey 09:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) - Keep Wikipedia Clean of Ambiguity! :)
  26. ✈ James C. 19:04, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC) NPOV should apply to everything.
  27. — EagleOne\Talk 00:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  28. WolfKeeper 16:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC) Unattributed words are bad on issues that are at all contentious. It means facts cannot be checked.
  29. Banno 12:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC) They are symptomatic of poor style.
  30. --FuriousFreddy 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC). They promote thinly disguised opinons, such as "some fans feel that the show should have starred B instead of A" and the like.
  31. patsw 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Weasel words are another example of both poor writing style and stealth mode POV.
  32. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. The Neokid 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Throbblefoot 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Opponents of "avoid weasel terms" include:

.

  1. droon Opnions of large groups of people shape our world more then opnions of quotable authors. Also, generalisations should be avoided, "muslims feel that ..." can not be true since not all muslims can feel the same thing. So one must resort to "many muslims feel that.." or "some muslims feel that.." even if there are no sensusses to support this with proper percentages, or they are not known to the author, the opinions still exist. It is possible that on a givven subject a dissentive view is widespread and of interest to the reader and it should be written, but agreed, not solely to portray the opinion of the writer, but even so, if this writer's opinion is widespread, then his opinion is also of relevance.
  2. NetEsq (overly broad)
  3. kwertii (implementation would make most articles tedious and awkward; the name itself is also inherently inappropriate and editorializing for a very useful category of phraseology.)
  4. JDR (Wikipedia lacks [and, sometimes, contradicts] common neutral knowledge represented by general public opinions)
  5. doom (I agree, this is overly broad: "weasel" words are good to describe a consensus view, e.g. "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest work." A god-like "neutral" POV is an excellent goal, but will never be perfectly achieved.)
  6. Dieter Simon (All "factual" articles sooner or later manifest some kind of "weaseling" [an awful expression]. "In perhaps the best-known example of cryptanalysts...", "the average temperature in winter in the British Isles...", "the famous description of the shield of Achilles...is generally regarded...", you could almost have a bet on it that you can find examples such as this in any longer piece of prose and even in some short ones. So what is the problem? Are you going to hold the many opinion-holders down the ages to it to quote who first said what? It cannot be done.) --Dieter Simon 01:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Fredrik ("weasel terms" are useful for consensus views)
  8. Jwrosenzweig 15:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC) Some people may feel that the phrases called "weasel terms" by many are damaging to Wikipedia, but others see them as useful in enough scenarios that even to call the rule of thumb "avoid weasel terms" is to make too broad a stricture against an important rhetorical device. And I am one of those people who take the latter perspective. :-)
  9. Get-back-world-respect (the term in itself is inappropriate slang and I still have not seen a better suggestion for cases where different people hold different believes. E.g. "While its opponents regard political correctness as an often ridiculous waste of time its supporters think it helps to fight discrimination." Do we need to source this with the League of the Politically Incorrect and the National Front for Political Correctness in order to avoid alleged "weasel terms"?)
  10. JFW | T@lk. How can you write NPOV articles without the occasional weasel term? Heck, it's the only way to save an article from VfD.
  11. Decumanus 20:30, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC) Too rigid. Makes it too awkward to discuss consensus opinions. I've had this rule thrown in my face in a way I consider to be overreaching, making it hard at times to write a decent sentence that is accurate. As a loose rule of thumb, it might be generally OK. That is, if it were "Generally avoid Weasel terms when you can and when it doesn't detract from accuracy", it might serve us well. But it too often, in my experience, it is interpreted as "Weasel terms are hereby banned from Wikipedia at all costs", which is nice cudgel for POV warriors to use in edit wars. If it were articulated differently, it might work well, but I do not accept the authority of this rule as it currently practiced, according to my observations. -- Decumanus 20:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
  12. This is silly. We use NPOV to ensure the NPOVity of articles. It's worked so far, so why change it? Dunc|☺ 17:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. I don't like weasel terms, but they are very often necessary to preserve briefness and clarity. Some claims simply do not merit a qualification of the supporter. The current formulation is way too strong. Gady 18:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  14. If a "weasel term" is readily substantiable, why not use it? What I mean is that if you could readily find many views that Brahms is a great composer, it's reasonable to state "Many believe him to be a great composer". Why should it be a more valuable statement that some guy somewhere once said so?Dr Zen 03:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  15. Horrible policy. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  16. [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Lifefeed 18:26, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) I agree with the problems of representing consensus views. Saying that "Mike of Springfield believes that <somefact>" is less effective than saying "It is widely believed that <somefact>". Also doing it the former way is still just as weasely, it makes a statement about a subject and that statement is given prominent attention in an article. Whether you say that it is "widely believed <somefact>," or, "mike believes <somefact>," that <somefact> is still said in the article.
  18. WLD 23:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) Weasel words are a flag for unsubstantiated facts or opinions. An 'ideal' encyclopaedia would have simply substantiated facts with sources and references...and be deadly dull. I think weasel words can help style, and need not necessarily be banned, so long as the ultimate 'final' edit of an article will include (peer reviewed) references and sources for the facts therein.
  19. Foolish. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 00:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  20. --Thoric 14:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) regardless of being considered weaselly, a so called "weasel statement" is still true -- you will be able to find some people that believe something no matter how false it is. If a view is held by at least 10% of the world population, should that not be significant enough to warrant an honorable mention?
  21. --Fred-Chess 08:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC) If someone wants to write POV he will do it regardless. But those who attempt to write good articles don't use "some think" to mask thier own views, but as a first step which someone else can expand on.
  22. Would Be Gnostic I like the darn animal
  23. Batmanand To say that one can never in Wikipedia survey the broad sweep of a debate, and (whilst being careful to mention arguments and proponents on both sides) come to a general conclusion about the result is ridiculous. This is particularly true of historical debates. To say that "the consensus among historians is that Nazi Germany expansionism was the chief short-term cause of the Second World War" is true, there is no two ways about it. If someone disagrees, there should be a proper debate on the talk page, which may or may not result in an edit. THIS is the best way to help Wikipedia. Not banning so-called "weasel terms" completely.
  24. BDD I like Gady's argument (#12) and would also like to add that these "weasel" terms can be legitimate if not used simply as a thin veil over POV blather. Consider this example:
Obviously POV.
  • Some historians have argued that Germany's ultimate goal was world domination in World War I.
This is true, but according to the "Avoid weasel terms" article, it should not be used. I see no reason this could not stand on an article until you could add something like...
It's strong language and a bold assumption, but perfectly legitimate. Could we really not have a fact like the second example until we had enough information to expand it into the third?

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.

  1. This policy is nearly completely silly. The various suggested ways to avoid so-called "weasel" and "peacock" terms are generally turgid and uninformative, and suggest extreme political correctness to avoid saying anything at all. The New York Yankees example is illustrative, in that the author rejects the statement "one of the greatest teams in baseball" in favor of "one of the most successful teams in baseball." Both phrases are superlatives, the latter not one whit less subject to interpretation or refutation than the other. Do we really have to pretend that no superlatives exist, in this insane quest for the tin god NPOV? User: RGTraynor 06:23 EDT 9 Jul 2005
  1. I oppose the wording of this guideline, because invoking it risks offending other Wikipedians, and because I believe it is worded too strongly, with too many exceptions. I prefer the wording of the proposed Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution guideline, which has the added benefit of addressing both superlatives and attributions in the same statement. Mamawrites 10:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. Saying that Linus Torvalds considers the Eiffel tower the ugliest tower in the world is completely useless--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 10:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I wanted to point out that attaching a name to an opinion is different from citing your sources. Consider this:

Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy

Versus this:

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison argued in the Clay Shaw case that the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Versus this:

Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (People vs. Clay Shaw, 1967, III, ii, 37-45)

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'm not sure you have identified a valid difficulty with the criteron. The last example (if the citation is correct) is citing from a weasely source. The fact that it is someone else's weaseling makes it no less weasely. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 03:08, 21 Dec 2004 (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.

But atleast other people working on the Wiki can track it back and point out that others consider that ref to be a nut, if necessary. It's 'open' rather than 'closed' as regards to further research.WolfKeeper

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

Two different ways to deal with this. If the real point of the sentence is discussing the wide belief, then, sure, leave it in. "It was widely believed at Copernicus's time that the sun revolved around the Earth."
If the point of the sentence is Brahms himself, and not the belief, then talk about Brahms: "Brahms is one of the greatest classical composers." (But also see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.) There's no point hedging on Brahms's greatness if it really isn't questioned. If it's not a widely accepted fact, the next editor through will change it -- not to worry!
(But the point is that Brahms greatness is questioned (Benjamin Britten thought he was lousy, for example). It isn't an indisputable fact that Brahms is a great composer, but it is an indisputable fact that he's widely considered to be one. --Camembert)
Excellent example. All in all, I'd say to leave out peacock terms like "one of the greatest" or "very important" or whatever. They're subjective and they don't really tell. ESP
If there's a controversy worth discussing -- like, say, there's a minority that claims that Brahms is in fact not all he's cracked up to be -- concentrate on that: "Music historian Arnold Fahrquardt has claimed that Brahms' music was in fact written by his pupils, and that Brahms had no musical ability whatsoever."
(Great if possible, but a source for such an opinion isn't always available, and in any case, you still have to somehow say that this is a minority opinion (see, for example, the last paragraph of Symphony No. 7 (Beethoven)). --Camembert)
Agreed. Sometimes there's no particular source. You can characterize the people that hold the opinion, like "Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah." Other times there's no cohesive group or person that holds the opinion: "Some people say dogs are the best pet; other people prefer cats". But an unsourced opinion is mostly hearsay, and should be avoided if possible. ESP
In the latter case, you can always cite a survey: "In 1999, the Zogby Pet Poll determined that 30% of Georgian households owned cats, while 35% owned dogs." As for the former case, it isn't just that there's a strong correlation between Christians and people who believe Jesus was the Messiah. The latter is practically a definition of the former. "Christian" is a label for a complex of beliefs that includes the proposition "Jesus was the Messiah." --FOo 02:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What if you're not sure what is a majority opinion? I can cite a lot of different people who wonder if Dubya is functionally illiterate, and only reads scripts from his speech-writers (and messes those up). I can cite Moore, and a list of others, do you really want huge lists in articles? Or should we say something like: Numerous critics, for example Moore in _title_, say X is Y. So that we've pinned down a specific example (or two?) to verify a wider ranging statement?
~ender 2003-08-17 13:19:MST
The point is not to forbid particular words or phrases; the point is to use these phrases as flags that signal unsubstantiated hearsay or personal bias. -- ESP 01:30 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
OK, I don't think we really disagree about the substance of the matter, I'm just a bit bothered that the page doesn't even hint that these sorts of phrases are sometimes useful and OK. Possibly it could do with a couple of counter-examples to show that such phrases can serve a purpose (I'd add some myself, but I'm feeling very lazy). --Camembert
Well, of course, there is an exception to every rule -- and especially rules of thumb like this one. I think in the last paragraph I give some ideas about what to do with weasel words. Weasel words camouflage hearsay or bias, and should be given extra attention because of this. They should be removed if possible, and left alone if not. -- ESP 03:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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.

I agree, that's also a problematic example. The article ends with these words? Then simply say something like For the reasons cited in this article, many in Denmark consider him... - Miguel

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

  1. Political atmosphere is hard to measure. Polls aren´t that reliable, sometimes they skip minor events. I think having weasel words is better than simply ignoring the subject, and if you put the subject you have to explain why it was relevant in the first place. Think 500 years from now, or a different culture.
  2. Putting a single if influential opinion as example isn´t enough. You are supposedly talking about the population as a whole (I think) not about the political and journalistic class, but the latter is a lot louder.
  3. It is subjective. Take the Clinton impeachment example -he admitted he had an "improper relationship" with Monica, yet opinions ranged from "So what?" to "He should resign" to "Let´s move on". Writing simply "Clinton admitted an improper relationship and he was fined $..." and so on without saying something about public opinion (which is probably a weasel term) loses a lot. I think the debate wheter he had sex or not with Monica, which was important outside and inside the official procedure would tell a lot to future generations not only about ourselves but about Clinton.

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)

Is weasel terms really a good term?

Suddenly one day, ...today to be precise, I discovered the policy against "weasel terms", exemplified as

  • Some people say/believe...
  • It has been said that...
  • Some would say...

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:

  • is the term really good?
  • is this issue really considered important by other wikipedians, or is it a policy which is made and accepted in order to be put in the drawer and forgotten?
  • could something be done to emphasize this misconception of NPOV?
  • should something be done?

--Ruhrjung 19:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How are you going to present views that differ from your own on controversial subjects without doing this? I can see wanting to put exactly who holds the opposing point of view "Adherents of the pre-1956 Georgia flag say......" and "Some homeless advocates say.........." rather than just "Some people say......" But not sure how you can present multiple point of views without saying that someone said them.Ark30inf 19:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, your question actually highlights another of my points of critic against Wikipedia customs. If I hadn't hid Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms by [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|policy against "weasel terms"]], I think the probability for you reading that Wikipedia policy page would have increased. Mea culpa!
...now, see what the page has to say first, then we can discuss the solution the page proposes. :-)
--Ruhrjung 20:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, I admit doing just a quick run through of the page before commenting and missed the meat of it. That itself might be a problem, either with me, the page, or both. I probably would not have missed it if the article had stated it right off the bat....."Try to attribute statements of opinion to a specific source such as "Joe said..." rather than using 'weasel words' like "Some say.....". That will solve the problem with the page (but perhaps not the problem with me scanning and then commenting).Ark30inf 21:05, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Back to the original discussion (which IMHO should probably be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_terms), I think the neagative cononations of 'weasel terms' should be avoided, even though (in general) we want people to avoid using those terms.
How about: Ambiguous phrasing | Ambiguous citing | Ambiguous sources?
~ender 2003-08-17 14:50:MST
Or maybe just Wikipedia:Avoid vagueness. -- Wapcaplet 02:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I suggest moving this page to Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution, a more specific and less pejorative name. I propose this for two reasons: first, the pejorative force of the phrase "weasel word" may cause people to react more emotionally than they ought to the policy; second, "weasel words" is actually a broader set of evasive language than the one under discussion here, so I prefer the more specific title. Comments? -- Rbellin 22:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In substance I agree with you (though I think "vague" is also a bit too pejorative. Currently I'm toying with the phrase "non-specific attribution"). I also think that this page can be combined with peacock: see my proposal at the bottom of this page. Doom 04:06, Jun 27, 2004 (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 think this is a very constructive suggestion. It has the fringe benefit of being extensible to cover other techniques such as the weasel passive (mistakes were made...) well described in the existing literature. A logo of a wall-mounted weasel head to link to, would make a nice trophy for wikipedians with a good record of fixing instances. -- Alan Peakall 13:12, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
For laughs, do a google images search of ferret buster or ferret legalization. -- 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.

I think an unqualified and unsigned "I strongly disagree." should necessarily be rewritten with weasel words: "A person strongly disagrees." Maybe this is a joke and I've fallen for it. -- Mike Simpson 09:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I strongly agree.

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)

Artistic Interpretation and Weasel Words

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?

A statement expressed this way is not that useful, if you think about it. Who are these "many numismatists"? Presumably not all of them, or you could say "all numismatists". 80%? 50%? 20%? In fact, there are a lot of numismatists, so "many" might just mean 1%, and maybe the coin is really an ugly duckling that some collectors like anyway. You could support the statement by adding something like "in an informal 1996 poll, 89% of collectors considered the double eagle to be the most beautiful US coin". (I've seen these for stamps, presumably coin rags run the same kind of thing from time to time.) In practice, since coin beauty is not usually a controversial topic, an opinion will likely be unchallenged for a long time, but without objective facts in support, some random editor may come along some day and say "I've seen the coin, ugh", and summarily delete the statement. We've all done weasel wording, but to me they're kludges waiting to be upgraded to facts. Stan 18:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This policy is overly broad

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:

Use of weaselspeak, expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", "is alleged" -- which are legitimate rhetorical devices -- should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden POV, since "claimed" implies that the claim may not be true and there is some reason to doubt it. For example:
  • ...is widely thought to be the work of... (good)
  • ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad)

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. This policy is not about being vague ("The United States of America is really big", "Einstein was born quite a while ago"), but more specifically about using certain phrases to put non-NPOV words into the mouths of unidentified sources. It's a sneaky dodge around NPOV, and it should be avoided.
Also, I question whether all "legitimate rhetorical devices" are necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. --ESP 22:15, 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)

How about "Avoid using ventriloquist's dummies"?
Anyways, yes, there are some cases where you just can't name the source (dog people and cat people, for example). There are other times that you're discussing the belief in particular ("Most people believed the Sun moved around the Earth"). As with most rules of thumb, there are exceptions. If you have some good ones to add, and you think people can't figure that out for themselves, why don't you put them on the page itself? --ESP 23:02, 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:

  • "Most people believed the Sun move around the Earth": the context is people in the modern age (as opposed to, say, medieval times); the history of thie belief stemmed from science and astronomy, while the mirror belief (Earth moves around Sun), stemmed from religion, Aristotelian natural philosophy, etc.

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.

It's "fine" in the same way spelling mistakes or grammatical errors are "fine". Creating Wikipedia articles is an iterative and collaborative task. Like other guidelines, this one simply points in the direction of "better". --ESP 19:47, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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:

  • "It may be the most famous painting in the world"
  • "Few other works of art are so romanticized, celebrated, or reproduced."
  • "The enigmatic 'smile' is the picture's most famous feature..."
  • "Others have described it [the smile] as both innocent and inviting."
  • "The most probable suspect is the wealthy Florentine Madonna Lisa del Giocondo."

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)

"Avoid" does not mean "forbid". The question is whether adding a single layer of redirection is a fair application of a neutral point of view.
I also don't see any particularly weaselly terms in the Mona Lisa quotes you've called out, with the exception of "Others have described it...". This policy is not the same as requiring people to cite sources; it's a style thing. If a sentence can't stand on its own as without a "Some have said" or "some people think" in front of it, it lacks NPOV, and needs to be better defined. --ESP 21:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, that cleared things up for me, so I incorporated it into the page. --gracefool 03:49, 9 Jul 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)

Disclaimer

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)

Exceptions

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)

I thought that the addition of a list of exceptions was a good step, but that the article ended up reading a little funny: the beginning seemed to suggest you should never ever do this, then at the end it says it's okay sometimes. I took the liberty of trying a re-write to incorporate both points of view throughout, softening the point (but hopefully without weaseling out on it; I agree that it's important).
By the way, "weasel words" is an okay term in my opinion: it may be a little excessively negative, but at least it's clear and memorable. You don't want the style guide to be so bland no one can stand to read it.
My version has been almost completely removed, pull it out of the Page History if you want to see what we're talking about -- 06 Mar 2004 17:16 (UTC)
--doom Thu Mar 4 2004, 15:49 (PST)
So, I kinda worked this out differently. Presenting this rule of thumb as an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand isn't really that helpful. I'd prefer to explain the rule, and have the exceptions at the end.
I also changed some of your wording that seems to be aimed at a single author. This is a rule about text, not about authoring. If I see some weasel terms you wrote, I should change them, just as if they were my own.
There are a lot of folks who don't seem to get that rules of thumb are balanced against each other. That's the point of the exceptions section: to give some clues as to when this rule of thumb could be avoided.
I thought the War and Peace example was kind of weak, actually. It's an example of combining peacock terms with weasel terms. What metric do we have for saying which of Tolstoy's novels is "greater"? Why is that encyclopedic, anyways? --ESP 18:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, the revisions are not much better. The designation "weasel term" is, in itself, inappropriate; it imparts negative connotations and stigma to a very common category of phraseology used to express consensus opinions or general knowledge. This category is perfectly acceptable in many, if not most, circumstances in which it is used on Wikipedia. Further, simply saying "Writing weasel sentences like these is bad, except for exceptions in situations A, B, and C" is no good; one cannot possibly list all potentially valid exceptions. (I expect the exceptions would far outnumber "evil" uses of these phrase patterns to avoid NPOV.)
This sort of situation defies simple codification that doesn't rapidly devolve into a muddled, arcane mess. Eventually, there will be 10 exceptions, and each will have 10 counter-exceptions, and those will have counter-counter-exceptions, and so on. This is needlessly bureaucratic and complex. We (editors) don't need a document to refer to in order to determine if a sentence is no good. If, in a specific instance, a particular usage of a so-called "weasel term" violates NPOV, then change it. If it doesn't, then leave it. We don't need this policy to find these instances or identify them, but it will be used to justify the culling legitimate consensus opinions among given groups, and thus reduce the quality and comprehensiveness of the information in the encyclopedia. Kwertii 20:15, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Kwertii. To lay down any rules about "weaseling", would be a Sisyphean task. As you quite rightly said, one set of rules would lead to a countervailing set of rules, and to what purpose? Having been given this charged expression "weasel" removes it from its real purpose, namely that of being a rhetorical device which makes for an easy smooth style, removes pedantry and repetitiveness. And it just might hit the nail on the head in what it wants to express.
The adverbial phrases for example, such as, or e.g. are precisely such devices. They are all there to save you having to quote every damned one of a sometimes huge number of examples that also belong to that same category you are referring to, but which would make the article you are writing almost unreadable. Thank you for standing up for this rhetorical device called "weasel word". --Dieter Simon 00:09, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm getting the feeling that what ESP is after here is absolute, objective truth, but this is much harder to achieve than neutrality, which is the real goal that the Wikipedia is based on.
Let me repeat the War and Peace example (it's much like the Brahms, though I thought it read a little clearer).
On the other hand, this sort of terminology can be useful for some purpose, for example when describing the consensus view without inisting that it's the correct view.
"War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest work."
This is almost undisputedly true (and useful to know if you've just become interested in Tolstoy). The stronger statement is much harder to defend:
"War and Peace is Tolstoy's greatest work."
Because there is room in the world for an intelligent viewpoint that prefers Anna Karenina.
Going on to list some prominent critics who have favored War and Peace could easily make this a stronger article, but there is also a risk of bogging down in detail if you try and introduce too much information at once.
As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity.
I thought ESP's response was very revealing:
I thought the War and Peace example was kind of weak, actually. It's an example of combining peacock terms with weasel terms. What metric do we have for saying which of Tolstoy's novels is "greater"? Why is that encyclopedic, anyways?
You're after a metric? Well, one thing you might do is a literature search for Tolstoy in some scholarly journals and do frequency counts of mentions of his works. But we don't, in fact, expect people to do this kind of thing, because it is not a point that is actually in doubt.
Why should it be in an encyclopedia? That's a kinda silly question: if you're interested enough in a writer to look up the guy's name, you'd probably like to be pointed at what is generally regarded as his best work. Similarly, if you're trying to place the guy, just being told that he's the author of the famous novel "War and Peace" might do it for you.
And I'm afraid this "exceptions last" business is a bit disingenuous; and it's also interesting that ESP is reluctant to address the reader directly (we're giving advice to a human being, not to some text)... but I've gone on enough for now.
I'm at a loss as to what kind of re-write would prove acceptable to both factions... I'm coming around to the point of view that this rule should be dropped.
--doom Sat 6 Mar 2004 1:56 (UTC)
So, first of all, it's not a rule, it's a rule of thumb -- a suggested way to get clear, concise writing that doesn't get hidden in fuzzy language. It's not a policy, a law, or a dictum. It's a tip, a guideline, a suggestion. If you avoid weasel terms, you get better articles.
I took out the "are you writing" part because that's not how wiki works. We all write and we all edit. Text goes through a lot of hands on Wikipedia, and just addressing the original creator of a sentence is kind of off-target.
I think the discussion about "greatest", "best", "most important" should probably go to Wikipedia talk:avoid peacock terms.
I'm just not sure that presenting a point with a mishmash of conflicting suggestions is the best idea. However, being that this is a wiki, maybe we can have our cake and eat it too. How about we make another page, like Wikipedia:generalize sources or Wikipedia:summarize sources where you or someone else describes how to move things in the opposite direction? That is, how to do Some people think... or Geographers generally believe... in a good way? We can make a "See also" pointer on the weasel terms page, so they point to each other. The two rules of thumb, though contradictory, can stimulate contributors' minds and hopefully get better writing in one or another way. --ESP 21:49, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


If it's intended as a rule-of-thumb rather than a rule, then it should be written in a much more tentative way. As written, you're telling people to avoid doing something that a lot of us think is unavoidable. This is a little dubious, even as a rule-of-thumb (and I think entries in the Style Guide are inevitably going to read as something a little stronger than that...).
Let me see if I can re-think what's going on here:
There's a syndrome (that we both agree is bad), where authors try and disguise their personal point of view by adopting a style that feels like "encyclopedia writing" without actually being very neutral.
Usage of the "weasel" and "peacock" terms are symptoms of this syndrome, but are not by themselves the problem. There's not necessarily anything wrong with general reference to a consensus view or the use of superlatives. The actual evil is the lack of neutrality (or perhaps laziness about digging up more detailed information).
The actual rule of thumb should probably be *something like* what I was trying to inject (however clumsy my wording was in assuming I was addresing writers and not editors): Watch out for this syndrome, here are some of the symptoms. Ask yourself if there's a better way to write this.
--doom 23:07, 6 Mar 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'm not sure if it's conscious or not. --ESP 06:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Heheh. I'll never tell. ;) Kwertii 21:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal to replace this page

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)

My comments are this: this and peacock terms are two different ideas, and they should stay on two different pages. Also, I think a page about clarity in writing shouldn't use such a long title, nor such a long intro. --ESP 15:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The weasel/peacock articles have a lot in common. (1) They're both about warning flags for a disguised lack of neutrality. (2) They're both of the form "X can be misused, so don't use X" (which is where I think they go astray: everything can be misused).
I just don't think it makes sense to combine two separate ideas into one. --ESP 15:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm trying another re-write. This has a shorter title, and the introduction has been moved to the conclusion: "Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution" -- Doom 06:18, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
I've made a few comments on the talk page. My general idea: I think you should expand your ideas about summarizing and contextualizing into its own principle. I think having contradictory or opposing guidelines is pretty reasonable -- good writing means balancing different needs into a reasonable whole. --ESP 15:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore and the George W. Bush article

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)

Exceptions

"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.

Some thoughts on weasliness

I was reading some of the discussion that's occurred here over the last few months. I've also been thinking about sentences like

The Adventures of Foobar is considered by many to be John Q. Nobody's greatest work.

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 Adventures of Foobar is usually considered to be John Q. Nobody's most significant work. Writing in the Oxbridge Dictionary of Literary Snobbiness, Xerxes Solomon called it "the most important work ever to be published on a Tuesday morning".

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)


Pragmatic use of weasliness =

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)

Agreed. Weasel words are frequently used to satisfy NPOV problems. The point of this guideline is to say, "Once you've made this step, don't stop there! Take it further and put some names on the the opinions." --ESP 20:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to say the following?
"His supporters such as Milton Friedman 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 such as Noam Chomsky charge that these policies tended to favor the wealthy and made things worse for the poor in Chile."
Or better yet, the way I wrote it but with a source for each? I think I'll do that myself right now, actually. Dave 07:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Minimise weasel terms

It seems to me to be the case that:

  • Most people agree that there are circumstances that it is easy to improve an article with a POV-problem by adding weasel terms, but hard to improve it in a non-weaselly way, in the sense that the attributions may not be known by any contributors, nor may they know how to find them;
  • Most people agree that any article employing weasel terms could be improved to a NPOV article that is not weaselly by adding the appropriate context, that is, the information exists, if only it can be found;

(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

  • If a POV problem can be solved by introducing non-weaselly context, then apply these edits;
  • If for some reason it is not possible to find proper attributions for context, then changing the POV problematic article to a WNPOV problematic article, then go ahead: this ameliorates the problem with the article, but please indicate the continuing existence of the issue.

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)

Excellent summary, I concur on every point. (Except maybe the coining of WNPOV, heh.) As to your proposal to rename: good idea; you have my support. • Benc • 18:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Weasel terms should be avoided if possible, but they are somewhat better than flat-out POV (Although, POV will get noticed more and perhaps changed... but often in a weasely fashion anyway). Weasel NPOV seems to be a transitory stage between POV and "true" NPOV. "Minimize" instead of "Avoid" recognizes that:
  1. Some action should be taken to correct existing weasel terms, in addition to doing your best not to make new ones.
  2. Weasel terms are sometimes necessary or acceptable. (Peacock terms, on the other hand, should be eliminated)
Although, I think the presence of such a policy is more important than the verb used in the title of the policy, and we already have a couple "Avoid XYZ" named policies, both of which address times when it is acceptable to do XYZ or something that is almost like XYZ. Plus we'd have to decide "minimise" vs "minimize" ;) I do think that some more-descriptive phrase should be chosen instead of "weasel term"... although none come to mind. The best I can think of right now is "wishy-washy", which is probably even more colloquial than "weasel"! (Do weasels act weasely in other cultures?) Perhaps "Avoid ambiguous attribution" or "Don't put words in our mouths" or something... -- Jacius 04:10, 30 Oct 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)

Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

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)

Accuracy does not require wordiness

"The Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history."

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)

Nicely said! Could you maybe add that to the body of this article? --ESP 05:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Done Sbwoodside 21:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But you could even describe that as weaselly. By success you mean they've won the most championships. That's not the only aspect of success though: sports a business, one could argue the most successful team is thew one who's made the most money (not being a baseball fan, I have no idea whether the Yankees are also in that position). You've still avoided telling us who says they're the most successful and what criteria they're using.
Of course, I think the article would be worse to go into that kind of verbosity to qualify every point like that. That's why I think weasel words are helpful. If it's obvious what you mean, use the weasel words, don't bore the reader with the he said/she said saga. Shane King 07:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
You can still make it more clear what criteria you are using for "greatness" or "success" and keep it pithy: "The Yankees have won more championships and made more money for the owners than any baseball team in history."

NPOV :)

I object to this shameless blatant bias against defenseless Mustelidae dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why? They love to dig up trash. And they love eggs, some species of birds are threatened with extinction because of the weasels. Where's the shame? Ironically, the peacock population is not under threat by these weasels.--AI 22:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes weasel and peacock terms are essential

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)

That is not the most important thing one needs to know about Shakespeare. --AI 02:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
That might be a somewhat useful comment if you'd tell us why you think so. Just responding with "no it's not" is completely unhelpful. 68.226.239.73
No it's not.

"weasel terms" bad, but only when disgusing NPOV issues

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)

These tools still seems a basic necessity to NPOV though. If there are other POV issues in the text itself, they need addressing independently, but it's still a fact of life that these terms express differences of opinion reasonably accurately. I've run across many issues which, since they were appropriately qualified, I've left because I could agree with the qualified statement. Without them, things might easily have degenerated into edit wars. Chris Rodgers 00:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with this viewpoint. Hiding POV is worse than leaving it obvious; it not only disarms readers but discourages editors from doing proper cleanup. I find it dishonest to deceive our readers into thinking us less biased. Deco 06:18, 7 Jan 2005 (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)

RFC?

Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm deleting this from RFC. Maurreen 05:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Useless policy

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)

Speak for yourself. Althought it is a little more pointed than your opinion: How would you like it if someone claimed that "Cynical's opinions are a waste of space?" --AI 02:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Some people say...

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)

lol –– Constafrequent (talk page) 01:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, experts agree that all those involved are too apathetic to shorten this page; onlookers are circulating rumours that were it shortened, a number of important authority figures would be offended. An anonymous comedian objected to the poor humour in this reply in an unpublished 1935 letter. Deco 07:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Many people agree that the page has achieved a sort of hideous unlife whereby it seduces passing wikians into posting irrelevant comments that ironically increase the very length that their comments bemoan. Everybody knows this. They talk about it with peacocks, behind your back. He who says zonk 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there a non-pejorative term for weasel terms?

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 still like "avoid vague attribution," which also has the virtue of being more specific -- there are many kinds of language sometimes called "weasel words" to which this guideline does not apply. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Dave 06:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, "vague attribution" is much better than "weasel terms" -- it's true there are lots of ways people weasel around, this page is just about one of them. I tend to use phrases like "mass attribution" or "vague attribution" or "vague mass attribution"... -- Doom 21:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest "snakes" or "worms" if you have a problem calling these people "weasels". Weasels are cute and playful and furry and warm-blooded and they help control the rodent population.
Many types of worms help aerate the soil and keep gardens growing! I would suggest "medusa creature of unfathomable evil." Deco 19:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... native speakers please help me :) Honestly, I had never heard the expression "weasel words" before joining Wikipedia. When I first read about it (on our guidelines) I thought "weasel" meant something like "weak", or "vague". Then I went to my dictionary and saw it indicates the animal. Now, as I intended the expression, the term weasel is absolutely not referred to the writer! It's referred to the words: the same way a weasel can suck the inside of an egg leaving it appear intact, weasel words "suck" all the meaning of the words which follow while appearingly leaving them intact. The result is that the whole sentence (weasel words + following statement) becomes an empty egg. Am I wrong? I don't see anything offensive about it. --Gennaro Prota•Talk 23:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Should I take the lack of answers as a confirmation that my assumption is right? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Now in a style guide near you

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)

Hmm. Someone should write Wikipedia:Weak latinate words aren't necessarily more serious. B-) --ESP 14:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Political/Religious Movements

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".

See no true Scotsman. Deco 07:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I am put in mind of "There is a spectre haunting Europe". Good point raised. He who says zonk 16:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

definition

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)

There is a perfectly good definition in Weasel word. Why not look at the most obvious means of finding a definition, namely the article which bears the name of the concept itself? Dieter Simon 19:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't be lazy. This is easy to fix.. Fixed.--AI 13:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That definition (Weasel words) appears to be narrower definition than what is inferred from the examples on the project page. Weasel words appear to be defined there as claims with zero information content. It is always true that "some people say <insert proposition here>" - writing this gives the reader nothing. On the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms page it seems that this very clear definition is being confused with "mass attributions" or "prevailing thinking", which do make a claim of some kind: If I say that "most people think <insert proposition here>" I am making an assertion which is falsifiable and useful to the reader. (The very fact that my claim may be wrong is what makes it a useful phrase).
I strongly suggest separating the specific instance of phrases which are completely devoid of meaning from the other issues here. Phrases which are always (unchallengably) true and should be banned: "It has been claimed"/ "Some say"/ "It is argued" etc. 86% of my survey agreed that if these zero-information phrases were treated as a more serious and separate category of transgression it would be easier to find agreement on establishing a guideline against them. Wragge 01:33, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

This policy is useless

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)

Resolution: (Im)possible?

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)

I think it's been disputed since its first writing. What about just accepting it for what it is: a non-binding style guideline that stimulates thought about writing better and more clearly? The list of "for" and "against" at the top of this page shows that it's done that for a lot of people. --ESP 13:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that seems the best solution to this never-ending controversy. After all, there are so many ways of looking at this, as has been mentioned again and again, and don't ask me to substantiate or cite the various the pro- and con- opinions. I would be here next month trying to do this. I shall have to weasel out of this one, I'm afraid. Dieter Simon 21:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ESP, I agree. What is the value of accepting a non-binding policy? What, exactly, is one accepting when you accept a rule that isn't a rule? If this is how it is, that this policy is non-binding "advice" or some such, then it shouldn't be called a policy at all. Having a "policy" implies that there are penalties for non-compliance with said "policy". In this case, compliance or non-compliance gives penalties only for those trying to determine what the policy really means for them ;). So, can we have a conclusion on this soon, please? Right now, it's really just fodder for flame-wars and edit-wars. Avoid Vagueness covers this area much better, I think. --NightMonkey 22:23, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Also, as a side comment, I realize that I shouldn't have characterized this as a "policy", but as a "guideline". I guess, with that in mind, I shouldn't be so quick to judge this. However, I guess I'm now curious as to the value of this guideline, especially since many people use this guideline as a de facto policy, making edits and reverts based around what they feel this guideline means at any given moment. How should this guideline be used, especially in "edit wars" where POV charges fly? Should anyone who makes use of this guideline in shaping articles be dismissed, since it is just a guideline?--NightMonkey 03:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Of course not. Again, this is a style guideline and something to think about. I consider it about on par with avoid the passive voice. Yes, you should try to avoid weasel terms that hide opinion in vague attributions. If you can't avoid it, don't get totally bent out of shape about it. Avoid, but don't avoid at all costs, say. --ESP 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Just for fun

http://www.weaselwords.com.au/ -->>sparkit|TALK<< 02:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm avoiding that link. B-) --ESP 23:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Counter policy

One other thing some editors do is Instead of

  • "most people say X"

go

  • "David Smith said X"

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

  • "some people say X"

instead of

  • "I say X"

The problem being that Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms is almost designed to support the former behaviour.

~~~~ 21:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A statement such as "most people say X" cannot be verified and is encyclopedic; one such as "David Smith said X" is verifiable. If another editor sees citing Smith as problematic from a rhetorical perspective, they could of course choose to cite someone else. The behaviour seems to me to be unproblematic. Banno 21:25, July 23, 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)

That's sure a point, if you write about Hydrochloric Acid or Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, but if you write articles about biographies or groups, then opinions are part of the article - not the opinion of the writer, sure, but the fact that there is a certain opinion regarding this person (imagine an article about Blair or Bush or Clinton without mentioning what people think about them - that's just not the full picture). And the same for a religion or a political party - what they say about themselves needs to be completed by how others see them - they all exist in this world and cannot exclude the rest of the world.-Irmgard 21:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC).
Yes, but there's also the point that you're not supposed to make stuff up in the wiki or do original research. If the comments are unattributed then it's easy for the wiki writers to accidentally or even deliberately do that. So unattributed opinions are impossible to police or correct; whereas cold hard facts about acids can be checked against books and stuff. So it's not the same thing at all. WolfKeeper
I'm not talking about unattributed opinions, I'm referring to cases like the opinions of Marx or Russell on Christianity, which sure do not constitute original research. Neither would the views of sociology or psychology (or even science, in some cases) on certain religious teachings. This stuff, even though not cold hard facts, can also be checked against books (and it is a cold hard und undisputed fact, that, e.g. Russell did write "Why I am not a Christian" - though the contents of the essay are Russels view and not quite as unassailable cold hard fact and not quite as undisputed). They all should definitely not go into an article unattributed. But no matter, if you agree with them or not, omitting them would be POV or at least an incomplete article. --Irmgard 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
If you say that Russell or Marx says X then that's not weasel words; that's a quote. It's ok to quote other people's weasel words, that's inherently encyclopedic.WolfKeeper

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).

Weasel terms are everywhere

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)

Thank God for this policy.

That is all. --FuriousFreddy 16:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples

I added back in a list of examples of weaselly terms. --ESP 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Relatively" - weasel word or not?

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 that the difference between "relatively few" and "just a few" is essentially semantics, both could be considered either as or not as weasel words.. I think it should be stressed that the problem is not so much particular phrases or words, but rather the way in which they are used. In the example you gave, "relatively few" seems an acceptable term because it is a fairly lucid phrase implying, roughly "compared to the number of people who could have been arrested, not many were", and this interpretation is reinforced by the last part of the sentence.

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)

Irony

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)

No, it's probably just an effective counterexample against its own advice, possibly based on someone taking the MS Word grammar checker too seriously :) What would the alternative be: People often phrase weasel words in the passive voice...? The passive voice is designed to focus attention on one particular noun phrase. My rephrasal places an un-necessary emphasis on 'people'. Stevage 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The appropriate use of the passive voice is to avoid repetition of the subject where there's no ambiguity of the active voice subject, in this case, wikipedia writers. The problem the style addresses in all forms of writing is when that there's ambiguity or dispute about the identity of the active voice subject, passive voice obscures it. patsw 13:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Propsal to remove this from the Style Guide

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)

At WP Policies and guidelines "Avoid weasel words" is shown as a content guideline and not a style guide. Therefore, I think this page should be using the template {{guideline}}. Would this be correct? And if there is not consenus as Kwertii said, it should be use Template:Proposed --L1AM 08:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree about removing it from the official list. It should probably then be rewritten, consensus re-evaluated etc. Stevage 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus that use of weasel words is good or even neutral with respect to article content. If this is removed from the Style Guide, are you proposing that editors don't have a rationale for editing "Some people say the New York Yankees are the greatest baseball team that's ever been"?
Is the proposal to flip everything listed in "Avoid weasel words" to "Don't Avoid weasel words" or "Be editorially neutral on weasel words".
I see that people have problems with some of the specific items in the guideline but who's rejecting the idea totally that there are not weasel words to be avoided? patsw 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The only consensus I've seen is that people should cite sources and not attribute their own prejudices or opnions to "many people" etc. Avoiding certain words isn't critical - you could always come up with new ones. I suspect you could compress this whole article into a paragraph on WP:V. Stevage 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are these really weasel words?

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)

Proposal to rename to "Attribute opinion"

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"

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)

It is not in any way copied from any book. --ESP 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Poorly illustrated exception

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:

  1. There actually are statistics as to how many people hold what kinds of pets. These do not translate to preferences per se, but they would arguably be more informative to begin with.
  2. The sentence as presented is content-free. "Some people prefer listening to Bach; others prefer the Sex Pistols." It's all true, but what article could use any sentence of this form?

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)

This is still a perfectly valid example. You can consider each half of the sentence separately as a possible use of weasel words: "some people prefer dogs as pets," is a separate clause from "some people prefer cats as pets." The clauses are presented together simply so NPOV is not an issue. The preference is assumed to be between these two common pet categories. Your counter example trying to illustrate that it is content free is a moot point because it removes the context that it is discussing the popularity of the most common types of pets.
That said, the reason this is still a perfectly valid example, is because it is trying to illustrate that this type of statement does not merit citation. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to propose that statistics has anything to do with this example because we can only guess at the context. "Most people prefer dogs as pets" on the other hand, would require citation of statistics.Shaggorama 13:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The preference is assumed to be between these two common pet categories. In which case it is a given that these categories are not empty, so the sentence conveys exactly no meaning. This has nothing to do with weasel words; you might as well write "dogs and cats are kept as pets". That some people will prefer one thing and other people another (and yet others like both where the choice is non-exclusive) is a universal constant.
That said, the reason this is still a perfectly valid example, is because it is trying to illustrate that this type of statement does not merit citation. These examples are supposed to be illustrative; things you could encounter in actual articles. There is no point to coming up with hypothetical abstractions if they have no conceivable actual instances. I do not dispute it does not merit a citation. Lots of things do not. Not all of them should be in an encyclopedia in the first place.
Furthermore, it is ridiculous to propose that statistics has anything to do with this example because we can only guess at the context. I actually guessed at the context as it could appear in an actual article, but your rebuttal is that my guess is ridiculous. Well, that settles that then. 82.92.119.11 23:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Third party weasel words

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 don't like talking of rights when I can avoid it. To me, the right question is what would improve the article. In this case, it looks like the reporter is just passing on rumours he couldn't substantiate. Given that the whole thing seems to be somewhat tangental to the whole article, I'd probably leave it out. It doesn't seem to add much. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I tend to agree with you. It’s not so much about falling into a certain category of words, not encouraged for use here, as much it is about the source being extremely poor. Grandmaster 08:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article very informative

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)

Rollback

I rolled back the simplified lede for this guideline; I thought it left out some important connotations. --ESP 01:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Not coincidentally"

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)

Limiting the size of the example section

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)

Anthropomorphisms as weasel words

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)

Can you provide examples that are fundamentally different from "The scientific community claims", etc.? I'm under the impression that you have noticed an intrinsically different kind of wording but the example you provided isn't actually adequate to highlight that difference. --Gennaro Prota 15:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"It should be noted that"

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)

  • "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax" Saying that something should be noted, in the author's opinion, is doing just that... attempting to express a personal opinion through vague syntax.--W.marsh 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't consider "it should be noted that" a weasel word when used in the sense of "on the other hand" or "keep in mind". In this case, I just consider it bad style - omit needless words. Deco 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wouldn't define either "it should be noted" as a weasle, beacuse in my opinion it expresses and outlines (in cases where the writer know what he is talking about) a proven fact. I agree that much of the bulk of the other weasels do not. But considering a fact that the writer can verify his information... yeah, why not use it? Painbearer 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Montreal -> Name of your town

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)

Very Debatable list

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.

Anal-retentiveness

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)

Just make sure other views are represented

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.

"Some guy once said"

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 are NOT about weasel words

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

"up to 100% effective"

"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)

We have a broader usage of weasel words here -- namely writing that evades (i.e. weasels out) clarity and direct statement, or worse misleads the reader. patsw 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the best definition I've seen so far. I asked above if my understanding (which is basically the one you state here) was correct and nobody replied. I don't see anything directly concerned with attribution either (vaguely attributing is just one way to weasel out a statement) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think your definition of weasel word is broader than the conventional meaning of the term.--72.78.101.61 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding anthropomorphism

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words/Archive_1&oldid=1137403348"