Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Removing caution tag from article

Looking at the discussion page, it looks like the debate on whether this should remain a style guideline ended about a month ago. I'm removing the caution tag from the page, but feel free to restore it if debate continues. -Kieran (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Because we've stopped talking about it doesn't mean the issue has gone away. We may have stopped talking about it because we our differences aren't reconcilable. And a month is hardly a long period of time. -- Doom (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CANCEL THIS GUIDELINE!!!!!

Wikipedia should not be too precise....Or it will be useless... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonso McLaren (talk • contribs) 06:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased against weasels--John Bessa (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out they missuse the term within the rule--209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [citation needed]Somedaypilot (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Example

Just passing through. The example "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats", which the guideline implies is OK, doesn't seem ideal to me. This statement seems kind of pointless and unencyclopedic. Would any article really benefit from having this pointed out? I wonder if anyone can think of a better example to illustrate the point being made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.150 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that that example is useless. I would also ask about supposed reliable source that use weasel words.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What would the opposite of weasel words be?

Say instead of having words and phrases that support a statement, you have words that cast doubt on a statement. For example: "So-n-so used to be heterosexual" vs. "So-n-so says he used to be heterosexual." 67.135.49.198 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's like asking what the opposite of punching someone in the face would be. Warren -talk- 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
that's easy: it's punching someone in the fist with your face.
weasel-wording is the act of using vague and misleading phrases to support or advance a claim that you couldn't ordinarily support or advance on wikipedia. it's insinuation, and it's the same thing whether you're insinuating that something is true or insinuating that something is false. --Ludwigs2 06:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I see what he's getting at- being more specific than necessary to cast doubt. I guess it would be a part of

No true Scotsman. Is there a name for that? Somedaypilot (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Terrorism" a weasel word?

Considering its contentious nature, could the word "terrorism" be added to the weasel word list? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the concept. Please look at the examples from the project page. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
He's "misunderstanding the concept" because the definition of "weasel words" in use on this page is non-standard. -- Doom (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add page to CAT:GEN

See WT:MOS#Propose adding to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words to Category:General style guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The media should read this article

Reading the list of weasel words reminds me of reading an article from the mainstream media. All reporters need to read this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.195.35.189 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But then they wouldn't be able to insinuate things that aren't true, or they haven't bothered to check. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
And they would probably feel like they're writing with one hand tied behind their back by abandoning a set of common idioms that have been in use in English for hundreds of years, just to make some wikipedia nerds feel better. Unlike the case with wikipedia, professional writers are not rewarded for writing awkward, disjointed and unreadable prose. -- Doom (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship in the United States

Is "a lot of people, too many to list" sufficient justification for removing a [who?] tag?-32.146.97.244 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand Wikipedia tags are often used as harassment. For instance does the statement "jumping in front of fast moving cars is not recommended" really need a citation? The word "recommended" already flags this as purely an opinion. But more importantly the knowledge or obvious of the conclusion truly is so widespread that finding and agreeing upon "Top" experts will be difficult.
OK such statements are often merely reminders of "common experience" or common sense which theoretically should be omitted...except almost everyone new to the topic may potentially learn via error while overwhelmed by the newness. I say as long as the caution is short and pithy and obvious -- let it stand without pointless references.
Save the citations for technical details supporting those little cautionary common sense conclusions. Anyone who disagrees with that should try holding their breath until they get a citation from one of the "top" 10 experts on earth that they need to breathe. Heh 69.23.124.142 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If you read the wikipedia guidelines closely -- and you'd have to be thoroughly deranged to want to, at this point -- you'll find the admission that you're supposed to support points that are likely to be challenged. One of the difficulties with things like this "weasel" guideline is that it empowers a certain kind of smart-ass nerd to jump in and challenge points in articles about subjects that they know nothing about. If you take it seriously, you end up writing really defensively, looking for references to support lines like "As many people have remarked, 'the sky is blue'." -- Doom (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful

Weasel words are generally considered to be words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.

Aside from being a glaring and highly prominent violation of the guideline that is being explained, this simply isn't true. "Weasel words" are not "generally considered" to mean this. This is a meaning that Wikipedia seems to have invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.130.231 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

...As most Wikipedians agree...

Hi, 216.90.33.33, yes, I can see doubts arising about my edit. Yes, I did try to make the point by using an example, as I thought the original sentence was meant to do. The trouble with the prompts "Who", "What", etc. is that they try to prompt the author to cite exactly who said what and what is involved. That of course is never possible with ad populum arguments (how many Wikipedians can one possibly cite in this case?). That is why I reverted the prompts. Are you happy with my intentions, or do you think they need discussing further? Do let me know if there are further points. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested removal of content

I think this guideline is great, and needs to be applied more often, but there are two areas that I think should be cleaned up that could create problems in editting. First, I think the first bullet point on passive voice regarding style manuals should be changed to say something like, "While Weasel Words are often used in the passive tense, the passive tense can still be used in WP articles." As it stands, the point say nothing and contradicts itself. Second, remove the "some people like dogs..." example, as it is another example weasel words that people could draw from. While the idea is good, that point should harken back to the section above saying that the opinion should be avoided altogether and reworded. For instance, "Polls have shown that preference for cats and dogs is split," with an appropriate citation, or simply letting the article speak for itself without the quote at all. The point in question either needs to be totally reworked or removed, as it seems to be a loophole to allow weasel words as long as someone says, "The believers are too numerous to qualify."

Again, this is a great guideline, but let's remove the loopholes, and thus the arguments. Angryapathy (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.

Here are some dictionary definitions of "weasel words":

  • "intentionally evasive or misleading speech; equivocation" (Collins English Dictionary)
  • "statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading" (Compact OED)
  • "deliberately misleading or ambiguous language" (Encarta)
  • "statements that are intentionally misleading, ambiguous, evasive, or indirect" (The Wordsmyth English Dictionary)
  • "Convoluted language used to spin or mislead; sophistry; euphemism" (Wiktionary)

I could go on. You will see that nowhere is there a definition that corresponds the one used here (i.e. that specifically mentions unattributed statements or verifiable sources). The definition that Wikipedia uses here is a small subset of the definition in general use -- perhaps the term was originally chosen by someone unaware of the more general meaning, I'm not sure. I believe, therefore, that the opening sentence quoted above is incorrect. I changed it to "In Wikipedia, weasel words are..." but this was reverted, I think because it was taken to imply that such statements wouldn't be considered "weasel words" outside Wikipedia, rather than that "weasel words" has a wider meaning outside Wikipedia, as I intended. I therefore propose changing the opening sentence to:

Weasel words are statements that are intentionally evasive, ambiguous or misleading. In Wikipedia, the term specifically refers to words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources.

Matt 13:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.214 (talk)

We are editors and not gods. (Although some editors would disagree with my claim.) The dictionaries listed above make an un-Wikipedian look into the author's heart and see "intentions". Weasel words, as we need to define them, need to have an objective test, not competing subjective claims where two editors can swap accusations "intended"..."not intended". The existing definition is fine. patsw (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with adding "Weasel words, as defined by Wikipedians, are.." ? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No, the existing definition is not fine. It is a Wikipedia-specific definition masquerading as a universal definition. You seem to have missed my point: I am not suggesting that the meaning within Wikipedia should be changed. Matt 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.244.43 (talk)

Implemented - this is certainly clearer. Employing Wikipedia-specific terms like verifiable sources in a seemingly general definition is confusing; at the same time, it makes it too specific. This is better. Rd232 talk 11:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A previously good idea

"Interaction between WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:WEASEL

Take something controversial, like Fahrenheit 9/11. Which is better?

  1. "Many conservatives criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to thirty examples) or "A, B, C, ..., BB, CC, and DD criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to thirty critics)
  2. "Conservative A and conservative B criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to the two)
  3. "Many conservatives criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to the same two examples)

(1) violates WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT. (2) violates WP:NPOV by falsely implying that only a couple of people criticized a widely-criticized movie. (3) violates WP:WEASEL, but it is clearly the best option. Yet many editors are using WP:WEASEL to turn accurate sentences like (3) into inaccurate sentences like (2). This hurts the encyclopedia. How can we clarify WP:WEASEL to prevent this problem? THF 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)"

Note that the above three examples are all unfortunate. Unfortunately, unfortunate is sometimes all you get. That's why this rule should be a request, not a demand. And certainly not an accusation, as I further note below. Setting aside the very perceptive point that number 3 is the best option of the three; sometimes it is not possible to get three sources, let alone thirty, in which case number 2 again becomes the best option, assuming the cited criticism is concrete and specific or otherwise not lacking. Anarchangel (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Weasel hunter bites noob

I added the above, from archive 3, where, like Matt's comment, it was promptly misunderstood and neglected.

Weasel is a fun-filled parkland for A's of BF. Vague is where stubs start. People do not write two sentences because they want to mislead, they write stubs because they do not have all the facts. Would-be WP Grand Inquisitors love to dress themselves up in Weasel fur trim and pounce on perpetrators of this largely imaginary offense.

This guideline, itself, shows such an evolution. It was once a good idea, partially formed, and then someone got the white-hot bright idea of bringing furry mammals into it. Cute. And then dictionaries (and I do not mean Matt, he was definitely not the first to bring the phrase, 'intentionally evasive'). Well, good. Except that dictionaries are only good for showing how the general population use a word. The current logic goes like this: Vague phrases are bad. 'Weasel words' are sort of vague, let us call it that. Look, 'weasel words' are in the dictionary. 'Weasel words' in the dictionary says, 'intentionally vague for the purposes of misleading', let us call it that.

See the mistake? It is all very well to look up 'weasel words' in the dictionary. But that phrase was wrong to use in the first place. The other steps perpetuated that mistake. Let us review. We now have a rule that is an automatic offense to AGF, whenever it is invoked, instead of a request for clear and complete language. And now let us rewind, and leave behind childish things, even though fuzzy rodents make us smile. Anarchangel (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (I think.) -- Doom (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, on the other hand, people do write PoV stubs. I assume some intentionally do so to insert a PoV. Or use vagueness to cover up the lack of attribution for their PoV. I assume. But that is not only indistinguishable from people who add PoV to articles, and add no sources, who have no intention of doing either; they just do not know. And what difference does it make? That is what makes WP:AGF such a good idea. We cannot mindread, therefore we do not bother pretending we can.

Like WP:POVFORK and WP:GAMECRUFT, WEASEL is a snappy soundbite that, without trying, disguises mindreading and A's of BF. From Archive 1, also ignored, again a mistake (Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution is currently a redirect to this page). Anarchangel (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (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)"

Someone also wrote that only [who?] and suchlike tags on the offending text should be used, as a big box at the top of the article is pretty vague, and I agree with that also, except in that case so rare that I cannot remember having seen it, where the entire article is filled with vague attributions. Anarchangel (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Given how often policy is cited and not read, policy titles are actually surprisingly important. Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution is superior, I think, not least because it very clearly states what the problem is. One might argue, in fact, that the policy title "Avoid weasel words" is itself weaselly. Rd232 talk 15:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Also, seeing "weasel" attached to text in articles is pretty confusing for non-editors, whereas seeing "vague" would be helpful in interpreting the text. Gruntler (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

List of examples is getting longer and longer

Should there not be some kind of limit to the list of examples? The number of examples must be infinite, I myself could think of hundreds without even straining my imagination. Am I going to include all of them. I don't think so. Surely, we now have goodly number of them, and we only need an idea of what they are rather than putting what we may or may not come across. We know now what a weasel word is, can we not just limit the list to what we have so far? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've inserted a more visible comment to not add any more examples, perhaps this will work better for the short-attention-span listcrufters who skip over the detail. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it could even use a trim. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 03:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

but ... Montreal is the nicest city in the world ! ..

so what's your point ? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.102.38 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Example section

I removed a significant number of the examples given. A lot of them were redundant, and some weren't even weasel terms. Please, keep the list short! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can detailed attribution - or lack of it - be weaseling?

Please see my question here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org+%22some+argue%22&btnG=Google+Search

There you go. Can't a bot go by and after every "some argue" add in "[who?]"? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

1590 results! Well that's not too bad.. It would be interesting to see what kind of support this proposal would get at WP:BAG, I imagine some would view it as disruptive. The thing is with "some argue" is that sometimes it's used as a leading sentence to the actual reference. For example in the Circumcision article it starts the paragraph with, "Some argue that the medical problems that have their risk reduced by circumcision are already rare..." and the very next sentence is, "Somerville states that...". Others are indeed referenced but don't name who the "some" is because it's just not that important/notable or for the sake of sentence flow. -- Ϫ 18:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Media about weaseling

I LOL'ed whe I read this article. Apparently media has worse policies then Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag choice

It seems to me that the article should express a preference for [who?] and [which?] and the like over [weasel words] and especially over tagging the whole article. The more specific the tag, the more helpful to editors, and weasel-tagging the whole article doesn't help an editor see what specifically needs attention and why. Further, to the casual, non-editor reader, [who?] provides a valuable service in making them think about the sentence, whereas [weasel words] is unlikely to mean anything at all to the casual reader. So it seems to me that more specific tags should be preferred when it comes to weaseling, but the current text suggests first the article tag. Would it be better to reorder the paragraph, as:

The {{Who?}} tag ([who?]), the {{Which?}} tag ([which?]), and the {{weasel word}} tag [weasel words] (all of which include an internal wikilink to this page) can be added directly to the phrase in question. In extreme cases, the {{weasel}} tag can be added to the top of an article or section to draw attention to the presence of weasel words.

and possibly adding the sentence:

If they are applicable, the more specific [who?] and [which?] tags will be more informative than the general [weasel words] tag to readers and to editors seeking to improve the text.

Thoughts? Gruntler (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rd232 talk 22:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Don't forget {{by whom?}}. -- Ϫ 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Page name

I propose moving this page to Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution, and updating templates accordingly (refer to "vague" or "vague attribution" rather than "weasel words"). This proceeds from the discussion above (#Weasel hunter bites noob). My own reasoning is that given how often policy is cited and not read, policy titles are actually surprisingly important. Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution is superior not least because it very clearly states what the problem is. One might argue, in fact, that the policy title "Avoid weasel words" is itself weaselly. To this Gruntler added the excellent point "Also, seeing 'weasel' attached to text in articles is pretty confusing for non-editors, whereas seeing 'vague' would be helpful in interpreting the text.". In other words, the change would be good for both editors and readers. Rd232 talk 10:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Although noting that the obvious shortcut WP:VAGUE goes to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, I'm suddenly wondering if a merger would be out of the question. Rd232 talk 10:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with a merger, however you have some really good points, and the term "weasel wording" can easily be misconstrued as disparaging, so I would probably support a move to "Avoid vague attribution" at this point. But because of how long the "Weasel words" title has been in use I'd think much wider community attention is needed, perhaps in the form of an RfC. Also, to avoid conflicting with the "{{Vague}}" template and its differing meaning, {{Weasel-inline}} would have to be changed to the much more specific and longer vague attribution, which can be a bit of an eyesore. -- Ϫ 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I can live with that. Precision is better than brevity, if we're forced to choose. Rd232 talk 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to go forward with this? What would the next step be? Gruntler (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It took me a lot of research to understand what was meant by "weasel words" (never heard that before). Avoiding vague attribution is self-explanatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.125.20 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I propose moving this page to Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution, and updating templates accordingly (to refer to "vague attribution" rather than "weasel words"). Given how often policy is cited and not read, policy titles and shortcuts are actually surprisingly important. Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution is superior not least because it very clearly states what the problem is. One might argue, in fact, that the policy title "Avoid weasel words" is itself weaselly. In addition, seeing 'weasel words' attached to text in articles is pretty confusing for non-editors (particularly any whose first language is not English), whereas seeing 'vague attribution' would be helpful in interpreting the text. In other words, the change would be good for both editors and readers. Rd232 talk 20:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be made clear what exactly a "vague attribution" is. What does it entail, to me it is a very unclear attribution. The average person wouldn't be looking for "vague attribution" since they don't know what it means. Most people know what a "weasel word" is, what "weaseling" entails and what the avoidance of "weaseling/weasel words" means, but the avoidance of "vague attribution"? They will not have heard of it. Don't forget there is a separate article for weasel word. What, are you going to change that to "vague attribution"? You have to be joking! How many people are going to search for that since it is such a "vague" title, it is almost a "weasel word" in itself. Nobody would ever look for the term, since nobody has ever heard of it in first place. The more recent dictionaries carry "weasel Word" but certainly not "vague attribution". In order to look up a word you need to either know such a word exists, or you should have heard of it at least. Making up terms ad hoc isn't going to help anyone.
I am opposed to changing this article, of that of "weasel word" to the this unhelpful term, "vague attribution". Dieter Simon (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't need to have heard of the phrase "vague attribution", because it's plain English. By contrast, the term "weasel word" is jargon, and I can't recall the last time I heard or read it outside of Wikipedia. Nor is looking up "vague attribution" a problem, because inline links will go directly to the policy. Also, a point I didn't make above, but "vague attribution" is more neutral in tone; "weasel word" may sometimes create the impression that the person who wrote the words is being accused of bad faith. Rd232 talk 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to said that although unlike Rd232 I have heard weaselword outside of wikipedia but meaning something completly different --209.181.16.93 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh? Meaning what? In what context? Rd232 talk 08:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't speak for the IP user above, but Writing Analytically by Rosenwasser and Stephen uses it in a way seemingly not covered by Weasel word. They identify it as a form of Equivocation, giving as an example the word "natural" which has been used in so many ways it could be said to have lost meaning. Шизомби (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You may not think your able to speak for me but you did a pretty good job of it--209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the proposed title is equally opaque, whereas the current name has the advantages of being current, in use, widespread and quite fun. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 16:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • How is the proposed title "equally opaque"? "Avoid vague attribution" seems much clearer to me: even for native speakers, "weasel words" is jargon many may not have heard of. Beyond that, it has advantages of (a) neutrality ("weasel words" may be accusatory towards the author) (b) clarity for non-native speakers, who've probably never heard of "weasel words" but can probably recognise at least "vague" in the inline tag "vague attribution", so get a sense of the general meaning (and the wikilink clarifies, if they don't know the word "attribution"). (c) the phrase "avoid vague attribution" gives a very clear message on what action needs to be taken. By contrast, replacing "weaselly" with "non-weaselly" is rather vaguer. (d) reference to "weasel words" encourages all sorts of confusion, drama, and abuse of the term, of the tag, and of the policy, in a way which "avoid vague attribution" would not. (e) at least to some extent, the term "weasel words" on Wikipedia conflicts with usage beyond it. Isn't that enough to outweigh a picture of a furry animal ("fun")? Rd232 talk 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I think my support is clear from the discussion above this RfC. And per RD232, I don't see how "vague attribution" is unclear. Remember, it'll typically be attached to text and the context should make it obvious. "Some people[vague attribution] think that Picasso is the greatest artist of the twentieth century." Is it really unclear what "vague attribution" refers to? In contrast, "weasel words" doesn't mean anything--or worse, is misleading--unless you've actually read the guideline, and the vast majority of readers don't (and shouldn't have to!) worry about Wikipedia editing guidelines. The first time I encountered [weasel words] I thought it was vandalism, as in "ha ha, people who think this are weasels." Gruntler (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. There is no need to euphemize out of existence all the phrases peculiar to wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • You're sure that's all you have to say on the subject, right after Gruntler's comment, and given the various points I made? Rd232 talk 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Er. You want me to say more? Ok. I think there is value in the peculiar culture that developed on wiki when it was small, and the culture it brought over from the boards. I think expunging that has extremely limited value to us. When someone says "some scholars think" they are using words to weasel out of a particular statement. they aren't "vaguely attributing" the words, they are weaseling out. Grutness's comment above elides a particular feature of the weasel words template, a link to the MOS. One could be rightly confused about the words but a click on the link would fix that right up. I don't want to soften or diffuse that in order to toss a veneer of faux professionalism on. We are replacing a direct and clear (though parochial) phrase with one which is indirect. You are, of course, free to make an inline template for 'vague attribution' and have it link to AWW. I have no problem w/ that. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with your (Protonk's) conclusion, but certainly not with your reasoning. The term "weasel words" is by no means parochial. It was an established part of the English language a long time before Wikipedia came into existence, and I would have thought that anyone qualified to write an English-language encyclopedia would understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Part of the trouble is that "weasel words" on Wikipedia are somewhat different than "weasel words" in general usage. The "opening sentence" section of this talk page [1] discusses this a bit, and the first sentence of the actual AWW article has to distinguish between general use of the phrase and the use of the phrase on Wikipedia. Gruntler (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not suggesting that the words originated here or on the net, but that the practice of communication on the net and on wikipedia fostered (for a while) a free-wheeling enough environment where phrases like "Weasel words" "trouting" "sock-puppeteering" could get used in a top-10 website without being ground under by some pretense of professionalism. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – Just call it as it is. Furthermore, you're going to have more people wondering what the hell you're talking about when you mean "vague attribution" than you will when you say "weasel word". MuZemike 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Huh. If anything, I would interpreted the ideas of WP:SPADE as supportive of a rename. Gruntler (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Let's just stop and clarify two things here. First, the usage of "weasel words" in this guideline unambiguously diverges from the meaning found in every dictionary. The opening sentence of the guideline acknowledges this: "Weasel words are statements that are intentionally evasive, ambiguous or misleading. On Wikipedia, the term refers specifically to words or phrases that seemingly support statements, but which fail to attribute opinions to any verifiable sources." Following on from the section above (Opening Sentence), OED defines "weasel word" as "orig. US., an equivocating or ambiguous word which takes away the force or meaning of the concept being expressed". Merriam-Webster has "a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position". What's even more disturbing is that the peculiar Wikipedia definition makes it into the weasel word entry, which declares weasel words "words and phrases that are ambiguous and not supported by facts." Clearly, this contradicts every dictionary we have.

Second, people commenting here should remind themselves that there is an enormous selection bias in this RFC. Almost by definition, the vast majority of regular contributors are familiar with the WP definition of "weasel words" and have grown used to it; and almost by definition, the vast majority of RFC respondents are regular contributors. Let's try and bear that in mind and avoid knee-jerk responses: try and put yourself in the mind of the average reader or average newbie editor, who's never heard of WP:WEASEL, and if familiar with "weasel words" at all (I'd question just how many people are, even amongst native speakers), is familiar with the substantially different usage than from WP. PS don't forget the other points made above (eg "weasel words" can seem accusatory, and use of such a policy name is less helpful to general debate than the proposed alternative - see above). Rd232 talk 23:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

    • As i have said before, if you think this article has a faulty interpretation of "weasel word" then do what every Wikipedian in your position does: change it to what you think it should read. That is entirely the right way to do with it.Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You say "the opening sentence acknowledges this" but this is only because of a bad clarification by you [2]. Trying that kind of game is not going to work here. --BozMo talk 17:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think your edit to the lead removes the apparent contradiction. You wrote: "Weasel words are statements that are intentionally evasive, ambiguous or misleading. Specifically on Wikipedia, the term is used of evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution." "Attribution" is hugely different from "statements." And Wikipedia drops the intentionally, which is an important part of the definition and accounts for much of the pejorative nature of the term. And both are different from some uses of the term, such as that cited by Schizombie. Gruntler (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair point, I was trying to avoid reverting to the old text and help RD232 keep his point. Of course no where are weasel words statements. Beyond that I think there is too much invested in the terms here on WP to change them any more than you can change "assume good faith" etc. --BozMo talk 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Gruntler, again don't be discouraged from editing the article to what you think it should read. None of the text in this article is set in stone. All of it can be changed to what you feel is right.Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per RD232 and Gruntler's comments which I consider to be well-founded and stronger than the oppose comments. It just makes more sense to refer to it as what it is.. vague attribution. Silliness and fun is all good but not when it comes to important guidelines.. professionalism should have higher priority in this area. And to compromise, the term "weasel words" can still stay in the pages description, along with the cute picture of the weasel. -- œ™ 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Good point. Under the heading of "avoid vague attribution", we should still talk about weasel words (which can certainly contribute to vague attribution) enough to justify the picture. Rd232 talk 09:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Both points of view have persuasive elements. I am sensitive to the desire for continuity and avoidance of unnecessarily euphemistic language. On the whole however, I support efforts to better clarify matters with this change to more readily understood language. Not a matter of huge significance either way however. —Finn Casey 05:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Peregrine Fisher; if I saw "avoid vague attribution" somewhere I'd be wondering who ate a dictionary for breakfast. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? "vague" is about number 5000 in word frequency in English (source: [3]). "attribution", 21,000 (related "attributed", 5000). "Weasel" alone (primary usage is obviously the furry animal) is number 24,000. Rd232 talk 11:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily opposing a move, but "Avoid vague attribution" doesn't succinctly describe the problem. The current title does. –xenotalk 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? We're not going to debate the substantive arguments because the current title is 5 characters shorter? Wouldn't it be better to have the title reflect the thrust of the content than worry about a minor change in the length of the title? PS Would turning Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution into a separate guideline which focusses on that issue, and refocussing WP:WEASEL to reflect the dictionary definition of weasel word be worth considering? Rd232 talk 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • By succinct I mean "brief and to the point; having characteristics of both brevity and clarity" (emph. mine). The current title (Avoid weasel words) has clarity, whereas "Avoid vague attribution" does not. (Vague attribution could apply to the statement "This was written by someone else somewhere else on the wiki"). –xenotalk 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
        • If I were to call you an ignorant butthead, it might very well succinctly express what I mean at this stage, but it is not in fact "clear", it doesn't give you enough detail to work with to understand what I'm criticizing, and the prejorative nature of the remarks are likely to generate more heat than light in the following discussion. --Doom (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose plain rename (no prejudice against refactoring): the spirit is the same, but attribution and style are different problems. Weasel words are just as about proper attribution as they are about style. An article may be written in brief no-nonsense style completely devoid of weasel codewords, yet also lack any references/attributions/sources etc. On the contrary, a properly referenced article may be loaded with weasel words and other stylistic faults. NVO (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A good example of the confusion this guideline engenders. Weasel words are not a stylistic fault: it is an issue of information, not style. And even with relevant inline referencing to a reliable source, a claim cannot be considered properly referenced if it involves weasel words (unless they are present in the source, in which case it's a properly referenced weaselly claim, but that's a much rarer problem, and one which a "weasel words" tag isn't meant to address). Rd232 talk 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh come on, Rd232 your previous item above is a terrible bit of sophistry. Using your reasoning, you are bound to get a much greater number of single-word entries in any dictionary/encyclopaedia, whatever their meanings. But it is the compound nouns you would want to compare, surely? So what about "vague attribution"? Google 890, Yahoo! 1,490. And "weasel word"? Google 33,800, Yahoo! 205,000. Do you think it should tell us something about the rarity of "vague attribution" and the great number of "weasel word" hits? I know what you are doing. You want everybody to use the good word "vague attribution", but we in Wikipedia can't advocate that as you must know. We cannot prescribe, we can only describe. Dieter Simon (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
        • ? The point was to try and establish how widely the words are known. "Vague attribution" is a phrase, not a term, so it's not as common as "weasel word". But the words "vague" and "attribution" are well known and the compound phrase is easily understood from the constituent parts. By contrast, "weasel word" is colloquial jargon, and knowing what a weasel is and what a word is isn't going to help you understand the term "weasel word". Rd232 talk 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Also, I want to encourage people to use it, yes, by renaming the guideline and the tag. Prescriptive/descriptive is not really an issue here. Rd232 talk 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if it's a poll for others' opinions or your private rostrum... Rd232, can you also comment on each of support votes? back to the subject: I have no objections against clearing stylistics out of the guideline, in which case is should not be marked as a style guideline anymore and will fall solely within WP:V realm. Then the issue of weasel words as such (clearly, actually, obviously regardless of attribution) must be taken elsewhere (forgive me if it's already taken care of), with WP:WEASEL redirected to this new location. NVO (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, well, I appreciate I'm making a lot of responses, but this is supposed to be a debate, not a vote. Anyway, if this RFC is going anywhere, it's in clarifying the guideline, and possibly splitting it. I'm not really clear on your "stylistics" point, but you're welcome to start a new section on what might be involved. Rd232 talk 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment "Some people" isn't really a "vague attribution," though. It's a non-attribution, seemingly by someone too lazy to specify who those "people" might be, or who is unable to say who they are because nobody other than the editor himself believes it. Шизомби (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not a "non-attribution" unless you redefine "attribution" to mean "attribute to a specific verifiable source", which is exactly the sort of Wikipedia-centric use of English we should avoid. (For comparison, OED, in the most relevant usage, has "Ascription in word or statement.") Rd232 talk 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That point is a bit weak, since the OED defines "ascription" as "the action of setting to the credit of; attribution of origin or authorship." Claiming that it is ascription to credit something to "some people" is stretching the meaning of ascription to an untenable degree. Шизомби (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose a rename. I don't think renaming this page would solve the problem of newbies not understanding the word "weasel" in an edit summary. Chances are, the majority of the editors who currently use the term "weasel" will continue to do so, and we'll always have a redirect back here. The definition Wikipedia uses for weasel word is not that different from the definition used everywhere else (a little more narrow, but that's okay). If you want better edit summaries, then we need to convince users to leave better edit summary. If you want to redo the wording on the template, that's a different matter and should be discussed elsewhere; it has nothing to do with the name of this page. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your point about inertia, particularly somewhere like edit summaries, but (a) there is a substantial turnover of editors, and in the long term (yes, years - but Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, is it?) a new generation of editors wouldn't be used to using "weasel" in the same way. (b) at least as important as edit summaries are the tags in articles (which readers see), and the general influence on the focus of debate on these issues which the page title and most common shortcut has. Rd232 talk 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose "vague attribution" is a type of "weasel word". Some weasel words are vague attributions, others muddy the meaning of a sentence in other ways. We should not create a "vague attribution" identifier unless we first agree to identify different types of weasel words. Personally I think that "vague attribution" is much clearer and should be used in cases where vague attribution is the problem, but that doesn't mean we need to get rid of "weasel words". Quantumelfmage (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • User:Rd232, you keep saying "weasel word" is jargon and think it should be replaced by "vague attribution". However, jargon, if it enjoys such wide distribution as "weasel word" does, has every right to be in an encyclopaedia such as Wiki, even as a guideline, but especially as an article in its own right. The fact that it does not include the text you wish it to have, does not mean that we should abandon it and replace it with something people just would not be searching for. It is true that the individual components "vague" and "attribution" have meanings we love and know or can look up in dictionaries, but I don't think the two parts necessarily make a whole. "Vague attribution" is not the only term/phrase that could embed the meaning you envisage. The meaning could be arrived at by various other potential synonyms. So why should readers be searching for "v. a.", especially if they have never heard of it? I know you are hoping for a gradual erosion of the the phrase "weasel word", especially if people keep hearing it, have it "drummed into them" in other words. However, in an encyclopaedia we should never be opinion formers, we should always describe things as they are, even in a guideline. It is not our business to lead the public in what we think the kind of phrases they should be using. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The Fact remains that wikipedia is missusing the term to mean what it wants it to mean --209.181.16.93 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Then it is up to people to change it to what they think it should be and submit it to the rest of the community.Dieter Simon (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, er, that's what this is about... Rd232 talk 06:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The first time I encountered 'weasel words' was in a review of an article I was working on, it had a certain sneeriness to it and wasn't linked to any policy, I have grown accustomed to the phrase, but a clearer wording might not have even required me looking deeper into the matter and so I vote less jargon = good Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with some of the reasoning, but the proposed rename seems like a jargonization, and I think we should be avoiding that, where possible. If I were a new user, I think I'd be less daunted with encountering a "weasel words" than a "vague attribution" tag or warning. Equazcion (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not only pro-attribution but also anti-vagueness. That is what I meant by the spirit of the guideline. patsw (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The phrase weasel word is an established English idiom that predates Wikipedia by quite some time. The policy originally and continues to be about them. We should avoid jargon, especially in editing discussion pages that may be read by new or inexperienced contributors. "Weasel word" is in dictionaries and usage handbooks; "vague attribution" is less vivid and more vague. That is not progress. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. "vague attribution" is far more precise and less prejorative than the non-standard, narrow meaning that ESP invented for "weasel words". But actually: the vocal proponents of the status quo on this guideline appear to be incapable of hearing counter-arguments: there will never be any consensus on this guidline, hence it should just be deleted, (or better, demoted to "essay" status). -- Doom (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary

So, if we're to take anything from the above discussion, it's that we want to keep "weasel words" as the guideline name, but that maybe it can be improved by sticking closer to the dictionary definition of "weasel word". That might mean trying to split off Wikipedia:Avoid vague attribution as a specific thing about, well, vague attribution, keeping this guideline for what are literally weasel words. I think that could be helpful. Rd232 talk 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

One or two people pointed to the issue that "weasel words" covers more than just vague attribution, but didn't suggest anything needed to be done about it, as far as I can see. I think there would probably need to be another discussion to propose that split. Equazcion (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing here: proposing that we do something. One of the things we could do is split. Rd232 talk 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. What would be the point, though? Is it just to be more technically accurate? Do you think people who encounter the weasel words tag or guideline will actually be confused because we might not be using it in the technically accurate dictionary manner all the time? Or is there a different reason? Equazcion (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Two main reasons. One, if the problem is vague attribution, rather than something else, we should say that, whether it's in a tag or in discussion. It's better to be more precise than less, especially when it gives a much clearer message on what action needs to be taken. Two, "weasel words" is somewhat pejorative, and it can worsen the atmosphere in discussion for the phrase to be used. Reference to "weasel words" at times encourages all sorts of confusion and drama in a way which "vague attribution" does not. Rd232 talk 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is a third point, too - I think focussing on vague attribution as an issue will allow much better advice on how to handle that specific problem. Rd232 talk 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I was confused by it at first since it was being used incorrectly --69.146.158.34 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There is another option, rather than splitting - the policy could be redrafted to group the 'vague attribution' definitions more tightly under one section - and have a separate shortcut(s) that point directly to this, one of the shortcuts could be 'vague attribution'. This would give users the choice of personal preference or context of conversation (e.g. if it is getting a little hot or is a new editor who they think might be offended by 'weasels' ) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be a natural first step to a split. If it works well enough, a split might not be necessary; if it doesn't work or is rejected, it might still lead to some improvements. Rd232 talk 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too enthralled with either option. Mentioning "vague attribution" separately from other types of vague quantification seems like trading ease-of-use for precision. I think aside from pedantics, the average person will understand the guideline better if we describe all of those uses together. Equazcion (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really in favor of "splitting off". Once upon a time I wrote a proposed replacement for both the "weasel" and "peacock" articles: Be cautious with compliments and vague attribution -- Doom (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Another option might be: do nothing. That seems to be at least a plurality view at this RfC. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think most of that opposition doesn't exclude the possibility of doing something other than a rename (the RFC issue) which might address the reasons for proposing a rename. However I'm personally a bit tired of the subject now! Rd232 talk 07:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A plurality, but not consensus... And you know, I think votes on this guideline are always skewed by the fact that most of the people who think it's ridiculous just shake their heads and walk away. If you read through the talk page(s), you see lots of negative comments that are one-offs. -- Doom (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way: can I infer from the above comments in the above poll that there's now an unstated wikipedia guidline that "fun", and "colorful" language is more important than accuracy? -- 15:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Article revision by anon contributor 150.217.172.84

Your revision is brilliant. So why don't you become a regular Wikipedian and give yourself a nick, so we can all recognise when you are editing. Many thanks. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Wikipedia:Words to avoid only links here from its 'See also' section, I think it could be summarised there as a subsection ( I've encountered more references to weasel words guideline than I have 'words to avoid'. I also note that isn't a guideline navbox as with some of the other guidelines (inc words to avoid). Although this might clutter the page a little, might be an idea to add one? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

THE WHOLE WEASEL WORD SECTION IS A BUNCH OF WEASEL WORDS IN ITSELF - OMG - LOL

The entire section claiming to caution against "so called" weasel words is actually a weasel word in itself. It is completely laughable. I think Wittgenstein might have actually been tempted to simply kill himself upon reading it. The 'weasel word' section sets out in a particularly didactic fashion what constitutes or is definitive of neutrality. The section therefore fuels a binary opposition (eg black/white, love/hate, god/devil) whilst claiming to be against such 'weasel wording'. This is completely irrational, and alarmingly so, given that it is expressed in a section which so clearly prides itself on the maintenance of such rationality. I have made similar comments to this effect in the 'peacock term' section. I think the authors of the section need to consider that in becoming too precise they run the risk of falling into inaccuracy, and downright fascism too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.60.164 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I use these all the time

Its in my Speech Pattern! Ive always used 'Weasel word' in order to STAY Unbiased, not to become biased92.2.162.14 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever actually been to Luton? Far from being the "...nicest city in the UK...", it's actually a complete shit-hole. There: more "Weasel Words". Most of the inhabitants look like unwashed ferrets, rather than weasels...and they've got a shit football team...

I'd call those anti-weasel words or reverse weasel words. Good job this is the talk page and not the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words + citations?

One big issue this "style guideline"(!) does not clarify is when it is appropriate to use weasel words in statements that are backed up by sources. The guideline does not distinguish between weasel words with citations and those without. For example, is it wrong to say, "Some scholars disagree with these findings..." and then citing those scholars? It would be awkward to say, "Lutz, Hirschfeld, Pellini, Dahl and Troy disagree with these findings" when they refer to different works. Likewise "weasel words" can legitimately introduce a topic that will subsequently be sourced. For example, "Some scholars disagree with these findings...[source]. Lutz, for example, writes... [source]. Hirschfeld points out...[source]."

I propose we discuss expanding the "exceptions" section of this article.

Also whatever happened to 'splitting' this section with the "avoid vague attribution" guideline? That made a lot of sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.125.20 (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Some people say" is a type of weasel wording. "X, Y, and Z say" is more in the nature of qualification. I think this is relatively clear in the guideline as it is; for example, if text prompts the question "Who says that?" it's weasel wording, if the question doesn't need to be asked because it already says who says that, then it's not. It also says "It is better to put a name to an opinion than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless source." Шизомби (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That, of course, is precisely the meaning of "weasel words": not putting a name to an opinion as opposed to an anonymous turn of phrase which leaves it open who might have made the statement in question. I really don't see what is wrong with the expression(s) "weasel word" or "weaseling", most good dictionaries will define it, while someone will have to show me where "vague attribution" is defined. I found no dictionary which will tell me what "vague attribution" is. Believe me, if people don't know the definition of "weasel word", they certainly won't know the definition of "vague attribution".
As to the question of 'when is it appropriate to use a weasel word'?, it is never appropriate to to use a recognised weasel word, a statement that is seen to be weaseling. If a statement is not substantiated with cited sources and it could be so substantiated, then it should either cite those sources or not be used at all. If, however, sources are impossible to find because they go back too far in time or there are too many sources to be cited then a statement, if it is self-evident may be used. If someone states that in an image "a leaf is green", and it is obviously so, then it doesn't need to be substantiated through citation. It would have to be sourced of course, if it were yellow in the image, and someone stated it to be green - or at least say why he thinks (with source citation) why he thinks it is green. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see what is wrong with the expression(s) "weasel word" or "weaseling", most good dictionaries will define it, while someone will have to show me where "vague attribution" is defined. (1) Each of the words "vague" and "attribution" are easily found in English dictionaries, and any article discussing "vague attribution" will make it clear how to take the phrase. (2) the ESP version of "weasel words" is a made-up meaning that does not correspond to dictionary meanings of the phrase. If ESP-weasels were just a sub-set of english-weasels, that might be okay, but in point of fact the list of Forbidden Phrases that this article sets out to demonize are not always weaseling. -- Doom (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I had to hunt to figure out what you meant by ESP. User:EvanProdromou, I think? Шизомби (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. He used to sign off as "ESP", and I still use that as a short hand on occasion. -- Doom (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not something the OP was addressing, but which fits under this heading - I think it would make sense to have some citations in this guideline (indeed probably in most Wikipedia: space). While there will be policies, guidelines, etc. which may be unique to Wikipedia (i.e. there aren't reliable sources for how to write a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.), concepts like weasel words aren't unique to Wikipedia and are things for which reliable sources can be found. Or in cases like this where there is an article which corresponds pretty directly to a guideline (WP:Avoid weasel words and Weasel words), it would seem particularly important to see to it that that article is at least a good article, if not a featured one. Шизомби (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words/Archive_5&oldid=1089918472"