Wikipedia talk:Embrace weasel words

message: I just wanted to point out that under the conserving brain space section, in the last example, the bad and the best examples are the same... They both say "Some people believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but most experts are skeptical." 
This needs to be changed to demonstrate what the best example actually is....
>
>
>
>
>
>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.34 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the point of the essay, however, I disagreed that weasel word statements are verifiable as is. They could be verifiable if they have a citation at the end of the sentence, but as is they do not give a verifier any place to look for the evidence, which is needed for the policy. Ansell 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the edits, and thanks for the agreement.   It's funny, I usually look at "verfiable" as more a "verifiable in theory", and tend to look at well-cited sentences as being "not only verifiable, but actually verified".  It's a subtle linguistic distinction, and since your language will definitely promote  the better writing, lets use yours! :)--Alecmconroy 11:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for the essay

message: I would just to mention that I thought this was a very interesting and thought-provoking essay. You have completely turned my view of "weasel words" on its head. Good work! K-UNIT 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good essay 

message: This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 21 August 2006.  The result was Keep. Xoloz 16:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD Result Notice

message: I haven't seen any indication that this is humorous from the proponents of this essay. Those calling it humorous are invariably its detractors. I've removed . Johnleemk | Talk 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has a point, I do not see how bad, better, best is in any way a mixed message. The passive voice references may be in direct opposition to WP:WEASEL, however, there are numerous complaints that WEASEL goes against good academic literary style by being so completely anti passive voice. I rather it this way compared to people simply voicing their complaints on the talk page of the competing guideline. Ansell 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your studies but I have to contend that your essay is contrary to the intent of the Wikipedia policies and only serves to undermine them. Firstly, you have to understand that this has nothing to do with literary style but rather the creation of an encyclopedia. Your entire argument is based on the idea that weasel words can sometimes be appropriate -- this much is conceded in the exceptions section of the Avoid weasel words policy -- but it does not follow that you should present what is, in effect, a contrary policy. The very idea of introducing a better style which is somewhere between bad and good is preposterous. How is this different than saying better is good enough so stop there? This is a mixed message (if viewed as a policy which it may mistakenly be) if ever there was one. Furthermore, it is in bad taste that you have created a page which basically says we should ignore the existing policy without even discussing this (at least not seriously) on the policy page in question. As you know, the purpose of the policy is to eliminate the very large number of non-NPOV statements which use this form to lend credibility and give the illusion of NPOV. A simple policy is necessary to achieve this. Likewise, voicing complaints on the talk page is necessary to allow everyone an opportunity to debate the issue and come to a proper conclusion. -- abfackeln 05:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously this page needs work of some kind to be more clear or something, given the number of objections it's received.  The thing is, Abfackeln-- it's not that I think the judicious use of weasel words is a "better" in between "bad" and "good"-- I actually sincerely believe that it is "best" in some cases.  The reason I wrote this was that I often put unnecessary details in the footnotes, but that editing style was often disputed as "weasel words".  Eventually I found it easier to write my explaination down in one place. --Alecmconroy 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. And good humor at that. -- Ben (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humorous? 

message: weasel words, including the ones you use as examples of better, simply aren't. 
Bad: Montreal is the nicest city in the world 
Better!: Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world 
Best: (but not what newbies would write) The Canadian National Tourism Council awarded Montreal the title of "Nicest city in the world" from 1999 to 2003 and again in 2006. 
 
Absolutely not.  The goal of wikipedia is not to make every sentence true.  It is to make every sentence verififable.  Weasel words remove the verifiability requirement by appealing to truth by making the statement true without adding sources.  The first statement is easily understood to be both false and untrue.  It is easily recognized as bening such by it's absurdity.  Statement 3 is ostensibly tied to a reliable source.  But statement 2 is true but most likely unsourced.  It is the worst of the 3.  It's lazy and, specifically, when it's used against living persons is insidious.--Tbeatty 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm considering deleting the whole first part of the essay and sticking with just the part that talks about using weasel words to achieve a higher level of abstraction and avoid including an unnecssary level of much detail.   In the meantime, I added language to remind the readers that the "better" sentence is still bad.  --Alecmconroy 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a bunch of crap 

message: Just wanted to show my support for the author of the essay under discussion and many - though not all, I hasten to add - of the points raised by her/him. 
Many - though, I hasten to add, not most - of the pages marked as exemplary Wikipedia articles contain weasely stuff (words, expressions and insinuations, etc.), just to mention one of the criticisms it might be possible to make in some - though I hasten to add, not many - cases. 
Neither extreme - too many weasels/no weasels whatsoever - can be considered good writing and while it is true that in some (etc.) cases  it would be perfectly possible to modify the text accordingly, some (etc.) editors just seem to press their weasel key without thinking or (which in my humb. op. is worse) without providing constructive criticism with which to improve the article. 
On the other hand, I must admit to being fascinated by a recurrent phenomenon on Wikipedia, to wit that in many cases - though I hasten to add, not all -, those who most vehemently oppose or embrace a particular language feature tend to be particularly careless in their spelling, syntax, punctuation and whatnot. 
I'm not pointing any finger at anyone - as the saying goes: remember that when you point your finger at someone there are three others pointing back at you - but it is in this light that I appreciate the essay for providing food for thought and helping me/you/us to reflect on my/your/our use of language. In general. Here's to making Wikipedia both fun, informative and authoritative. Cheers! --Technopat 14:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that January 2007? Time passes , oh t-p (0.02%) — Newbyguesses 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my tuppence' worth 

message: This essay contains content that should be in the orijinal, supposedly contrasting policy, which maintains its point. If there are exceptions to wikipedia:avoid weasel words, then they should be spelled out there. That way, we get a more balanced viewpoint. BrewJay (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to embrace weasel words. 

message: I think I carved the meat out this article (exceptions) and grafted it into the policy. The article said it was there, but it wasn't. I considered using that stuff about politics gravitating to weasel words, and I think it might well be true. They're lawyers. It's very hard for them to shake out of weasely terms. But, it's hard to be sure without reading a lot of articles about politicians and their schools of thought. Merjer complete. BrewJay (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific to politics 

message: I'm a proponent of the usage that Evan Prodromou decided to call (inaccurately) "weasel words", but I think that this essay makes an inadequate case for them.  I feel like I've talked about this enough over in the "Avoid weasel words" discussion, but in summary: 
Consider the line "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest novel".  One could, with some work, no doubt find citations/quotations to support that statement, but there is no reason to require that someone do so.  It's not a statement that anyone who knows anything about the field would dispute.  I submit that any challenges you're likely to get to this statement here on wikipedia are the result of people who are attempting to mechanically apply a simple principle, but we're engaged with the problem of conveying information with language, and there are few simple principles that really work, even as a "rule of thumb". 
I submit that anyone who likes the "Avoid Weasel Words" guidline should go read some actual encylopedia entries and play the game of counting the number of occurrences of what Prodromou decided to label "weasel words".  This is an extremely useful idiom for many different reasons, and should not be demonized just because it can be misused.  -- Doom (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still agree with what I said here a year ago, but I want to underline the point that even just calling this stuff "weasel words" has problems.  It's an invented piece of terminology foisted on wikipedia by Evan Prodromou, it isn't in use anywhere else but here.  What we're really talking about is something like "vague reference" or "indefinite reference"... if you let someone call that "weaseling" you're giving the game away.  -- Doom (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  not making the complete case 

message: As an infrequent and minor editor, I found it difficult to understand the point, and point of view of this article, and found the levity of the earlier section distracting ( - Is this satirical?). The 'Mr Guy Who Isn't Famous' section was particularly baffling until I read the discussion. I gather this essay is part of a larger discussion, but it would be good if it were a little clearer. Bitbut (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wha?

message: The following text looks very incongruent with the rest of the text in my eyes.
Has someone vandalized the page? (Else a re-formulation may be needed to avoid
misunderstandings:
 A few Wikipedians, mistaken about the goals and principles of Wikipedia, have
 written on this page that if “a belief is sufficiently prevalent, we shouldn't
 let weaselphobia stop us from clearly saying so”, suggesting that they are the
 ones to decide when a belief is “sufficiently prevalent”, and that weasel words
 should be “embraced” even though they render the statements vague. Such
 attitude arises from the inability, or unwillingness, to conduct appropriate
 research on the topic:
As an aside, much of the controversy about weasel words arise because of the
different forms and intents. Consider e.g. the following, hypothetical,
statements and motivations:
"Some opponents claim X." is probably
intended to point to an uncontroversial fact, while neither
overstating/overgeneralizing ("Most ..."), nor understating, nor cluttering the
text with unneeded references. The mere personal knowledge of the author of
these opponents would often be enough. (Controversial claims may need different
treatment. Further, specifically for Wikipedia the inclusion could still be
inappropriate according to e.g. the relevance/notability rules.) This is, IMO,
an acceptable, often even good, use.
"The suggestion met with heavy opposition.", on the other hand, may be a
rhetorical trick to create an exaggerated view of the overall reaction.
Bad use.
Other examples may be indicative of laziness or poor research.
Bad use.
As is often (ahem...) the case, it is not the superficial symptoms, but
the underlying diseases that pose problems: A temperature of a 100 degrees can
come from a fever or from exercising; and even in the former case, attacking
the disease rather than the temperature is typically (ahem...) the better road.
88.77.178.181 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? (and an excursion)