Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disclaimer 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it's conscious or not. --ESP 06:33, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heheh. I'll never tell. ;) Kwertii 21:21, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link to the talk page: weasel words? 

message: 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 .  15:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Moore and the George W. Bush article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

message: right
I object to this shameless blatant bias against defenseless Mustelidae
dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV :)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "weasel terms" bad, but only when disgusing NPOV issues

message: Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 06:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm deleting this from RFC. Maurreen 05:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Useless policy

message: 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)
replies: text: lol –– Constafrequent (talk page) 01:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some people say...

message: 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)
thread_title: Now in a style guide near you

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political/Religious Movements 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This policy is useless 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just for fun 

message: 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)
thread_title: Weasel terms are everywhere

message: That is all. --FuriousFreddy 16:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank God for this policy. 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Relatively" - weasel word or not? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Irony

message: 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)
thread_title: Are these really weasel words?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename to "Attribute opinion" 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is not in any way copied from any book. --ESP 05:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a ripoff of Scott Adam's book "The Way of the Weasel" 

message: 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.  
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Third party weasel words 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article very informative

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Not coincidentally" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Limiting the size of the example section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anthropomorphisms as weasel words 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "It should be noted that" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Montreal -> Name of your town 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anal-retentiveness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Some guy once said" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Most of the recommendations are NOT about weasel words 

message: One of the items in the list says:
* Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..." 
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)
thread_title:  Regarding anthropomorphism