Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-07 Steffi Graf


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Who are the involved parties?
User:Kingmundi User:Tennis_expert

What's going on?
I have attempted to remove or label the sentence "She is widely considered to be one of the greatest female tennis players in history." as a weasel word sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word Tennis expert reverts removing it, and reverts when the weasel word tag is applied.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like the sentence removed, or re worded, or at the very least to have the weasel word tag applied to it.

Discussion
The language is sourced, which is why it should remain in the article. Tennis expert (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are already quotes, why do you need that sentence? The way I see it, the main issue is the words "widely considered" - so why not just have "considered by some" or something along those lines? The quotes do not provide enough evidence to say "widely considered". -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 05:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering why not just take out the sentence? Include all the quotes that are already included, and let the reader make their own conclusions. Let me quote a good example from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

begin-quoted-text

Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Again, consider the sentence "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way, for example, "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." But how can this opinion be qualified with an opinion holder? There are millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history. Instead, it would be better to eliminate the middleman of mentioning this opinion entirely (widespread as it may be), in favor of the facts that have been the vectors of its adoption:

"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team." end-quoted-text Kingmundi (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal Swoops In!
OK, this is very simple (and thank the heavens - last cases have been tough):

You have three choices with the same effect:


 * Remove the offending sentence, and explain how she's considered one of the greatest players of all time (as it does now).
 * Keep the offending sentence, and explain how she's considered one of the greatest players of all time.
 * Change the tone of the offending sentence. Why not just "is considered to be", and explain how she's considered to be one of the greatest players of all time?

Same idea no matter which way go. So what will it be? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC) WP:WEASEL has some exceptions, and that's up to editorial judgment whether it's OK to use them in a given circumstance. For example: "Mozart is considered to be one of the greatest composers of all time." No worries there, so likely no worries here :-)