Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 2

message: The original and proper sense of “weasel word” (introduced by Theodore Roosevelt) was a term used to suck the significance from the terms around it (much as a weasel might suck the contents of an egg from its shell).  As such, a weasel word might well be used to introduce bias, but exactly and only by such sucking; nor would the purpose of a weasel word necessarily be to introduce bias.  It would be nice if Wikipedia didn't so often corrupt things. —12.72.72.17
:Yes, I agree myself: this particular use of the phrase "weasel words" has very little to do with the existing sense of the phrase.  It's in fact a new coinage, and might actually be considered "original work" (I tend to think of this as "pulling an esr", myself). -- Doom 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Choice of Term 

message: I removed the section on weasel links. This guideline is about stating opinion without attribution. I don't think that "weasel links", prejudicial as they are, do that. I think it's a valid point that needs to be addressed, but I don't know if it will be addressed effectively in the middle of this separate guideline. Maybe move that idea to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel links? --ESP 03:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel links

message: I have found it acceptable in academic writing to state "Some have argued..." followed by a citation or two, or more. I do not see how that is weasiling bias in to anything. What is the specific advantage of taking the author names and putting them all in the start of the sentence, if someone wants verification they can go to the citation. That satisfies the Verifiability criteria, and I don't see how it specifically goes against NPOV, it is stating one point of view objectively IMO. Ansell 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point.  Vague attribution and passive voice are often used when the name of the source is available via reference but not of particular importance to the article.  I do not particularly care to read an encyclopedia article constantly peppered with "Ira J. Rozenblatz argued in his paper 'Dialectic analysis of the tapeworm' that tapeworms like melons."  I just need to know what he said, followed by a link to a source, and trust that the editorial process will weed out content that violates verifiability or undue weight rules. The Crow 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in an encyclopedic context, it makes more sense to say what was said (followed by proper attribution, etc) rather than to say "some people say" this. In other words, you shouldn't choose "it has been argued that tapeworms like melons." over "Tapeworms like melons." If you can't defend the latter, then the former should not be used. --63.173.196.33 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK as long as there seems to be general agreement among sources that tapeworms like melons.  However, if there are a number of different sources that are not in agreement, then you cannot state it as an affirmative fact.  And if there are widespread notable opinions on the matter, neither can you simply omit it.  An encyclopedia should characterize a debate, not re-enact it.   When sources do not agree, then vague textual attribution helps you avoid re-enacting the debate.  Citations should be included to reflect both opinions, which readers can choose to read and decide for themselves.   The Crow 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic writing styles 

message: Someone has substituted George Bush with 'John Smith' (July 6 edit). I think the original variant illustrates the question better, and in no way violates NPOV or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.206.201 (talk) 10:58, July 12, 2006 (UTC)
: I agree. It’s clearly only that one editor’s opinion that GW Bush is functional. --Cplot 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George W. Bush 

message: Neopets does not have weasel words. All of those facts are true. I should know.General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace)  15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article weasel word. Dieter Simon 00:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And WP:V, and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT while your at it! Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neopets 

message: A survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit states that Vancouver is the best city to _live_ in. Just thought I would share that. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4306936.stm)84.202.95.146 21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best City 

message: What about statements such as "Those who argue/consider/believe...", "Those statements are thought to be..." and "Those areas of research..."? Are these forms contributing to an acceptable opinion, or unacceptable hearsay?--Metron4 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Those..." 

message: Now this is it. You can't have a freaking opinion here and now, you can't even mention that people that have some opinion.This is the worse hypocrisis I have even seen. Wikipedia is written by people, and a certain bias is unavoidable. We are not freaking robots. The neutrality nazis have landed. Screw you guys, the Wikipedia will die because of people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.190.235 (talk) 23:12, August 27, 2006 (UTC)
::And causing a bit of a flamewar by doing a bit of trolling such as you are doing now, eh? What do you think NPOV is all about? Who are you anyway? All very well to express controversial opinions anonymously, isn't it? Whatever, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as an encyclopaedia only a Neutral Point of View should be considered. I have moved this paragraph to the bottom where "new Stuff" usually goes. Dieter Simon 23:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is an ideal. Generally biased text should be rewritten to be well-cited and more neutral, rather than removed altogether, unless it's truly unsalvageable. Deco 00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been argued that some weasel words are useful to make a statement that is immediately (and I mean IMMEDIATELY) backed up with actual facts and shit, sort of like the Shakespeare article that uses some weird weasel/peacock stuff but supports them with cited sources and actual facts instead of just gushing over Big Willy. Weasel Words are not always the work of the devil, but one should learn to harness your chi energy in order to learn how to master their potent yet often seductive powers. For you see, the weasel word can be useful but it takes wisdom and force of will in order to keep them from turning a perfectly decent article into a stinking heap of worthless non-sequiturs and wild diversions from reality that will eventually culminate into anarchy, vandalism, and the end of the world. Smith Jones 05:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stuff 

message: I rolled back the exclamation points in the rhetorical questions in the first section. I thought they gave an incorrectly frantic tone to the questions. --ESP 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclamation marks 

message: If people keep suggesting additions based on what just seems right to them, this rule will run the risk of being OR. New additions should have credible outside sources that already call them weasel words. Doczilla 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policies and guidelines are reached through consensus via ongoing discussions.  I believe you are confusing article space (the articles on wikipedia) with wikipedia namespace/talkspace (where policies/guidelines exist and are formulated).  The talk, as well as the policies/guidelines, would necessarily be original research... no one can publish articles about guidelines we haven't yet formulated.  Please also keep in mind that consensus can change. /Blaxthos 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verging on OR

message: I question the basic definition of "weasel words" used in Avoid weasel words.
The examples illustrate emotive language, i.e. language designed to sway the reader's emotions without presenting facts or reasoning. 
But every other use of the phrase "weasel words" that I've met has referred to deliberately ambiguous language which allows the speaker to "weasel out of" a position or commitment when confronted with unwelcome facts or reasoning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (my mid-1960s copy) defines "weasel-word" (US) as "a word which destroys the force of a statement, as a weasel destroys an egg by sucking out its contents".
Philcha 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words - emotive or equivocal 

message: I have been operating under the impression that Weasel Words should be removed, or replaced with specific inline citations, i.e.
"His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." ==> "Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"
In a dispute I've been having (on the talk page here) I believe *some* of the disagreement has been because some of the editors believe that simply adding a reference is sufficient (a seperate disagreement is listed below). So, is it sufficient to "fix" Weasel Words by just adding a reference to the critic, i.e.
"His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." ==> ""His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate.[1]"
Cbuhl79 19:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a sufficient resolution to dealing with Weasel Words? 

message: What has been completely overlooked here is the undue weight clause -- by citing any source on widely accepted truth (which can include a truth about the existance of an opinion) you are (1) elevating the importance of that particular source (or groups of sources), and (2) necessarily introducing point of view promblems (adding an otherwise unrelated example).  Imagine inline citation to clarify:  most scientists believe x[1] (which leads to a cite to scientist Z) is akin to scientists like Z believe x -- now you've introduced the feelings and characterizations associated with scientist Z -- which has nothing to do with who believes x, or if x is true.  In a widely accepted truth, there should be no need to characterize with a reference, as long as it is truely verifiable.  The burden of proof isn't inherent in every single statement the wikipedia makes, and without this exception the guideline can be used as a blunt instrument to pick articles to death.  Additionally, this is all covered ground -- go read the talk archives from 2004 -- this was all covered back then, and shows how the exceptions necessarily must exist, and be used appropriately, and is exactly why this is a guideline instead of a policy.  /Blaxthos 23:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: I have to say that I hate this guideline.  Or, at least I hate how people apply this guideline.  I have found editors to use this guideline as an excuse to revert changes that are intended to remove POV.  I have found editors to use this guideline as an excuse to revert changes that are intended to fix unreferenced statements.  There are editors who act as though it is now wrong to ever use the word "some" even though, in some instances, "some" is the exact, referenced, encyclopedic thing to say.  The guideline is a bit vague as to what exactly should be avoided, and I think that leads to all sorts of confusion and problems that make it more difficult for Wikipedia to actually fulfill its objectives.
Can it be made very, very clear at the beginning of the guideline that just the use of certain words or phrases is not enough to qualify as being weasel words?  Honestly, why does this guideline even exist?  If there is some statement like "some experts say", isn't it enough to just ask for a solid reference for that statement?  If such a reference actually exist, what is wrong with having that statement in Wikipedia?  If the reference doesn't exist, then the statement should be gone anyhow.  How close was the vote on putting this guideline into place anyhow?  Did not many editors foresee the problems that might come about with it?
Cheers, HalfDome 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely concur with this note.  I would like to see if anyone has any solutions to this.  Nonprof. Frinkus 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way to fix this guideline? 

message: Elimination of weasel text from articles are extremely important to establish an NPOV standard.  My concern, is I have seen POV in a sinister form of negationism, with is the side of this coin, and is just as POV as weasel text.  I have seen lots of text neuter the facts to the point they make it a challenge for more basic readers to walk away with a correct NPOV view of the article.  For example, someone will put in sourced data (with references) that is positive for something (like a system of belief), and use negationism to neuter any possible criticism in the article with claims of POV and weaseling when someone else edits in a negative view point, in an attempt to counter balance the positive view point already there.  Should not all articles be neutral?  Is sliced bread really that great?  Nonprof. Frinkus 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negationism … the other side of the POV extreme 

message: The Orson Scott Card article currently contains weasel words in the Homosexuality section, which is being discussed on the talk page. Can we get some input from those familiar with this guideline to chime in about how we can improve all of this? --Lethargy 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: I don't understand how a rational person can think the term "Weasel" is NPOV. 
If you are going to indict an article for having certain content, you better damn well make sure you define what the hell you don't like about it. Calling it 'too weasely' is just, totally POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk) 14:38, November 13, 2006 (UTC)
: Oh dear … I have to completely agree with this comment here.  If the goal of Wikipedia is NPOV utopia, we should avoid childish characterizations of individuals or text.  Perhpas policy should come up with better, and clearer, definitions for all to follow.  Nonprof. Frinkus 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true that it be better to have a more innofensive {attribution} tag that you could use to call for tighter attribution, rather than the somewhat insulting {weasel} tag -- I would guess that this is one of the reason the talk page here is accumulating some angry, sputtering comments. -- Doom 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being a non-native speaker I can't comment on the perception of the term. However if we are looking for an alternative, the best I've heard of, so far, is "vague attribution" (rather than "vague phrasing"). —Gennaro Prota•Talk 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with any special "weasel" tags, templates, or prompts in any way. I agree with Doom, it is patronising and demeaning to the intelligence of Wikipedia readers and editors alike, as though we can't think for ourselves. Dieter Simon 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me understand. You disagree with "vague attribution" as well? If not, then we are just agreeing :-) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 04:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the original motion of having "weasel word" moved to "vague attribution", Gennaro, as they aren't the same thing for the reasons I have given already. I disagree with having special "weasel" tags, templates, or prompts as they are patronizing and demeaning of the intelligence of readers and editors. We know when we come across a weasel word without having to be told every time. Dieter Simon 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocrisy at Wikipedia becoming almost too bleeding obvious 

message: It seems inappropriate that an article decrying the use of "weasel words" should contain the sentence:
"It is well-established that weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.239.75 (talk) 21:33, November 11, 2006 (UTC)
::Quite so, after trying to explain what weasel words/terms are we are getting "don't really give a neutral point of view". Will whoever it was be getting round to it eventually? Dieter Simon 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should follow its own wisdom

message: I apologize for being my first post/comment. I had made an anonymous addition to the wiktionary word "clearly" (current), which from what I'm reading here appears to qualify as a 'weasel word'. However, it also appears a disagreement occurred and the page was restored to it's original description. If I understand the dispute correctly, the addendum definition was viewed as a rant. Perhaps the extension I added could be cleaned up with another set of eyes. Please review my edit and consider the word "clearly" to be added as a 'weasel word'.
:I think this should actually go into discussion under the Wiktionary article "clearly", where you can discuss this with the editor who removed your edit in the article. I think also, the clue is in your being anon, anything that appears anonymously is often considered POV, might be worth to adopt a nick of some sort. As you can see in this Wikipedia article, anything that isn't substantiated, anything that isn't supported by evidence, anything where the speaker or author avoids naming himself as the originator of a statement may well be considered "weaselling". Dieter Simon 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional word? 

message: Is this section really established consensus?   It seems to clash with the rest of the guideline, and to me it sounds like something someone threw in to justify a poorly-written article.   And lo and behold, I think there's pretty clear evidence that this "consensus" is the consensus of a single editor.  (Note that these are two consecutive edits by one editor.)    If no one objects, I'd like to move this section here for discussion since sticking one's opinions en masse in a guideline article seems like poor form. - Cheers PhilipR 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one objected.   Here's the section I'm disputing.   - PhilipR 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Are some articles better off with or without the passive voice?" 

message: Would "It has been proven that..." be a suitable addition?  I encountered this in an article and it really rubbed me the wrong way, especially as there was no source for the claim.  -/- Warren 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Windows Vista; I removed the statement.  -/- Warren 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Seen, thanks :-) Yes, that one was really bad. I asked because, for instance, in a math article it might have referred to a mathematical proof; in such a case I guess the sentence in itself is ok, but needs to be backed up (of course). In practice I don't think the list can ever be omni-comprehensive, and we could even trim it a bit: what matters is understanding what words are able to "suck away" (as a weasel does with an egg's content) all the meaning from the sentence that follows; the list just enumerates some examples. My 2cents —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for addition 

message: Question/request for comment about hearsay issue. Over on The Wicker Man (1973 film), users argue the following as a notable point. Christopher Lee reported, for years, that when incoming EMI/British Lion exec Michael Deeley saw the completed (99 minute) cut of the film in 1973, he pronounced it "one of the 10 worst films I've seen." Christopher Lee has said this in many interviews, might even say it on one of hte DVD commentaries. He has good reason; he developed the film, worked for free, considered it one of his best roles; the 88 minute version that first came out was horribly butchered, and it was six years before a restored version was released to critical acclaim (both for the film and Lee). He has good reason to be pissed off. 
But in recent interviews with Mark Kermode (writer of "Burnt Offering," a Brit documentary about the film), Deeley denied he ever said it. Kermode passes this on in not one but two (web-)published articles. I say, it's hearsay. Maybe he did say it, but only Lee has claimed he did (so far's we know), and Deeley since denies he said it. Others claim it's notable because Lee's claim has been "widely reported" (read: widely repeated) over the years, and can be found routinely on various web pages. Like many stories about this film, it has passed into the stuff of myth (what I call cyberban legends©).
But does WP publish "myth?" Even if it can be referenced in several notable, published sources? Comments welcome. Nay, comments requested. I'm interested in what other, more experiences WP policy/guideline wonks have to say. TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hearsay?: so-and-so's statement "widely reported on the web" 

message: It is in dire need of removing of weasel words, and the contributors there are unwilling to even consider this guideline which will improve Wikipedia standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.186.248 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above anon continues to hide sources against consensus which was achieved as a result of 2 RfC's. During this discussion, two complaints were lodged with the ArbCom. The current wording of the article in question is a result of well over a month of discussion. Please take this into consideration before making any drastic changes to the article and review the appropriate discussions within the archives. Thanks, AuburnPilottalk 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It took me all of 20 seconds to find cases of weasel wording in the article, and I went ahead and removed some of it.  Whatever your concerns may be with the anonymous editor's approach to dealing with sources, their concern that the article has been compromised with weasel words does appear to be valid.   -/- Warren 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review [[Fox News Channel]] 

message: I generally shoot weasels on sight, but I'm a bit disturbed by the tendency for people to justify them if they're marked with "". It's true that if a citation is provided, it's no longer a weasel, but until then, it is and should not appear in an encyclopaedia. Should we say something here? —Ashley Y 09:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you referring to? The "citation needed" prompt doesn't necessarily relate to weaseling, it refers to any statement made that is not sourced, statements which may be made robustly and even definitely, but which noneless have not been supported by cited facts. A weasel term, on the other hand, is trying to hide the origin of who said what by concealing original voices by employing generalisiations, the passive voice, etc. Dieter Simon 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have used the Template:fact to challenge statements which might be weasely. It's easier to put that there, give someone an opportunity to define the assertion ... or have it blitzed. I think there are times when there is a reference which supports it, the editor just didn't put in a footnote for it. Using the template lets editors know (or I HOPE it lets them know), "Okay, corroborate this, or it's on the block." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My experience has been that most weasel-word statements are added by people who don't participate regularily in the editing process, and as such are unlikely to come back and back-up their claims with cited sources.  That's why I just delete weasel words, and unsourced information in general, on sight.  It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.  -/- Warren 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citation needed" 

message: I fail to see how the passive voice can permit omission any more than the active voice can. Why is "mistakes were made" an example of why not to use the horrid passive voice when you can also use the active voice and say "mistakes occurred"? In fact, there are three long-standing uses of the passive voice in the introduction to the Weasel word article: "Weasel words can be readily identified . . . are frequently used by politicians. A weasel word can be compared with . . ." Obviously no one who's read that intro has found it to be enough a problem to change it. Making a blanket proscription against the passive voice is just unhelpful. Strad 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to come up with a counter-argument for this but after some analysis I'm starting to think that you're right and essentially this recommendation has cause and effect confused. Certainly any weaselly passive voice statement can be rephrased in the active voice, given a little talent with juggling words ("...Have been questioned" becomes "doubts emerged...", "...Have been raised" becomes "Attention turned to...", et cetera). It's just that, with the aforementioned requirement of semantic juggling the passive voice is much easier to make weaselly statements in and thus most such statements will end up utilizing it. The relative sporadicity in the use of the passive voice otherwise promotes affirming the consequent in this case, concluding that if a sentence is in the passive voice, the chances of it being weaselly are significantly higher. This line of argument is not entirely invalid, but I think that logically the tone should shift from "Stay away from the yucky, icky passive voice" to "The passive voice makes you more prone to inadvertently omit sources and vaguely attribute statements, so be wary when using it". --AceMyth 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a reasonable position. I don't think the article really reflects that yet, especially with that gratuitous slight about the passive voice being "'less direct, less bold, and less concise'". I'm unsure of how much I should change without broader input. I guess... give it 10 days and if no one else responds I'll update it. Strad 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive voice redux 

message: Some people prefer "Mustelisms" to "Weasel words" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.114.130 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better phrase? 

message: As a starting point, I'm interested that some people don't like the phrase "WP:WEASEL"  I also think it's not good.  But I had a question:  I've found several instances recently where people are using this policy as an excuse for making completely unqualified (and unsourced) statements about large groups of people. E.g., in order to fix a sentence that says "Many people believe the Yankees are the best ever," they're saying it must be written as "People believe the Yankees are the best ever," since "many" is a Weasel Word.  Is there a history of this?  Has the issue been discussed?  It seems a clarification against this would be very natural and appropriate.  Any thoughts? Mackan79 03:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." Obviously "people say" qualifies for this just about as much as "many people say". Deleting things on the basis of usage of specific words that are designated "weasel words" demonstrates a total failure to get the point of this guideline - We want to do away with unsourced statements, not words in the English language. --AceMyth 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of Policy

message: Hi Looking for some comment on the use of ambiguous phrasing and whether it is weaselish or not, and hence should be included in this guideline.
My feeling is that if a word has multiple meanings any of which could support a POV, then it is potentially a weasel worrd, i.e. the editor could be deliberately using an ambiguous word to enforce an opinion (through their interpretaion of the word) but use a the argument that the word is used in its NPOV meaning.
I hope this makes sense.Belbo Casaubon 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does make sense, though I think this falls not under weasel words but rather under Fairness of Tone. Both are closely related in that they compromise NPoV by word-juggling. --AceMyth 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right by my thoughts are that use of ambiguous language destroys the force of a statement, ambiguity also allows and editor to use deliberately vague phrasing to promote a viewpoint. Belbo Casaubon 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: This post has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources in order to consolidate the discussion. --Philosophus T 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review as Article of Faith (and weasel-word) 

message: Does anyone object to me adding these two phrases as examples of weasel words? eg
*John Smith is widely acknowledged to have been a homosexual
and
*John Smith's account is commonly seen as unbelievable
Curtains99 13:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Commonly seen' and 'Widely acknowledged' 

message: On many articles concerning sportspersons, esp. tennis players, I ran into statements close to this: "[John McEnroe] is widely considered to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time." Initially, the statement was unsourced, so I removed it. It was reinstated with this online source. I accept that many people may in fact share this opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless. And stating this in the intro is at least questionable. Or is it? Or am I being too dense over this? Please give me your opinion. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "questionable" if the statement is true.  Undoubtedly, there will be instances where it is debatable that a particular sports figure is among the greatest of all time in that sport.  But there is no reasonable debate about Margaret Smith Court, Martina Navratilova, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras, Chris Evert, Andre Agassi, and Steffi Graf (the persons you have cited) being among the greatest tennis players of all time.  Before you start unilaterally deleting statements in their articles, as you did with the John McEnroe article, you should ask the established editors what they think via the relevant discussion pages.  Or, better yet, if the unsourcing disturbs you, you should be able to do a 1 minute Google search to find a reliable "among the greatest" source and fix the problem yourself by adding the link.  Regards.  Tennis expert 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly a content dispute and we are not having it here. But I'd appreciate any opinions on this. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't really characterize it as a content dispute... your question is relevant to this page. Concerning sports players, it is useful to think of the overall number of people who have played that sport. There must be and have been hundreds of millions of people who have played tennis, and I imagine hundreds of thousands of professional players. It makes sense that "one of the greatest tennis players of all time" would include rather a large number of people. Even a hundred would be a miniscule percentage of the total number of tennis players. I also found it amusing to note that there is a section in the Tennis article entitled: Tennis#The greatest player of all time. — Epastore 16:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely considered to be one of the greatest of all time 

message: I'm running into a potential weasel word issue at Electronic voice phenomenon‎, a pseudoscientific topic that has some documented adherents but isn't accepted by the general public or scientists.  In the case of a topic that most people don't believe exists, is it still WW to use things like "alleged", "what proponents/critics say is..." or even "proponents believe to be..."?  In particular, is it still WW if there are citations providing examples of the positions/opinions and statements from individuals on both sides later in the article?
Looking at bigfoot, I see "alleged" used in the intro, and it seems necessary since leaving it out would result in "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is an ape-like animal..." which obviously is no good because it makes it sound like accepted fact.
In this particular case, one editor is arguing that edits that don't support his POV are "weasel" and has used this guideline as justification for wording that doesn't use as many of the words mentioned here, but makes opinions sound like accepted facts and skewing the POV of the article.
General recommendations would be helpful as well as outside opinions on the article Electronic voice phenomenon‎.  At this point the dissenting editor is insisting on  and even  tags on the article.  Input would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words in articles about disputed topics 

message: There is a sentence in the article: '"Most" can range from 50% to 100%' - this is incorrect. 50 % would be half, not most. The least amount that qualifies as most is 50 % + 1 . --194.251.240.114 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 50% + epsilon, rather... --AceMyth 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Most" can range from any amount more than 50% up to 100%
is that better? Cogswobble 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update this sentence. 

message: Universities and antisemitism, currently up for deletion, contains several uses of this word. To my mind, this is a textbook example of a weasel word in action, and I'm surprised that it is not mentioned on this page. Using 'incident' without mentioning what counts as an incident serves to conceal vital information, such as the severity of the 'incidents'. One can imagine a situation where antisemitic physical attacks are going down, but verbal abuse is going up by more, leading to an 'increase in incidents'.
Instead of using it without context, it should be explained what constitutes an 'incident'. Better still would be to use more specific terms, rather than such a broad brush.--Nydas(Talk) 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Incidents'

message: According to some, weasel words a problem at Wikipedia, so the need for a template became clear. Okay, heh, I over-used it, but you get the point. Instead of slapping a menacing  template on a poorly worded sentence, we can now use the  variant.
I tweaked the category it puts pages in, so that we can create a :Category:Articles using weasel words category. 
Hope I didn't jump the gun by saying "you can add" in the project page. Just revert me there if I was too quick. I actually like discussions! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That template was not setup for dealing with weasel words at all, but rather attribution, thus it has been moved to , but there is some thought that it is unnecessary in light of  and the dozen or so templates redirecting to Fact. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel word template

message: A little bit ago User:Holek marked an edit as minor and added a picture of a talking head spouting some weasel words. I found it odd that this wasn't discussed on the talk page. Personally, I'm not so cure the image is appropriate as it seems a bit unprofessional, and articles don't actually "talk." Few other policies/guidelines include pictures. I'm probably making too big a deal about this, but what do others think? --YbborT 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Image