Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 3

"Probably"
Is "probably" (and its siblings, "likely", etc) a weasel word? As in, "The '666' carved on Mercedes' forehead is a probable reference to the biblical Number of the Beast", for example. Clayhalliwell 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, without exception. Your example should just give a hyperlink to 666, so the reader can decide themself on possible references made by the carving. Ramir 05:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Which "people once thought"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.17 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably the most confusing and annoying Wikipedia rule
I'll be damned if someone truly understands it, instead of a guideline for articles, Weasel Words has becomed the ugly cousin of POV, with articles being branded of having "weasel words" just because they are formated to fit a proper article, in which, if all sources would be properly listed, it would be 10 times as big as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.169.199 (talk) 05:26, September 5, 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the biggest problem in people only seeing the "letter" of this, and not the "spirit". It's not about the words, folks, it's about what's being done with those words.  So, don't go looking for "weasel words", but for "weasel tactics".  --jae 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. About time someone brought this up. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Only Weasels disagree with this rule. They hate being called weasels. :)

Seriously this is the most important rule in WP. It is a quantifiable way of nailing down people that try to avoid the POV rule and use WP to advance their world-view. WP is starting to become a joke for exactly that reason. , ,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.83.104 (talk) 22:05, February 23, 2007 (UTC)


 * "Nailing down"... like someone to a cross, this sounds like. The article says, right there at the start: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.  "Nailing down" and "quantifiable way" (quantifiable?  Do you, Mr (or Ms?) Anonymous, even know what that means?) doesn't sound like there's room for exceptions.  Oh, and why not signed?  Are you chicken? -- jae 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and your first link to PA... care to show me where there's a weasel word? Neither does the Google link have anything to do with "weasel words".  People consider WP to be a joke for all kinds of reasons (this very guideline can be one of them... or rather, the "spirit" that it expresses). -- jae 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting take. Of all the reasons I've heard that anyone has EVER taken WP for joke, the spirit of being too clear about what constitutes "weasel wording" is not one.  (BTW, asking if someone is "chicken" is culturally off-base here, IMO.  Think what you want, but at least you could use more class when you accuse someone.)


 * My take on that spirit: "The following are examples of words and phrases that signal a LIKELY case of weasel tactics: ". The specific words & phrases are clear warnings, not definitive proof: prima facie evidence, as it were.  Just as using the passive voice is a warning about weak or unattributed writing, not definitive proof. Jmacwiki (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak exceptions
Exception clauses #1 and #3 seem to be quite weak. As far as #1 is concerned, it is almost always very desirable to cite sources when making claims about historical or religious beliefs, especially when writing in depth about a particular belief system. The current clause seems to legitimize making an unsourced statement along the lines of "members of religion X believe in beneficial effects of pedophilia" - bad idea. The example provided says "most people" - how do we know? Is this even true on a global scale (what about population outside Europe and their religions?). Unless a reputable historian had made such a claim, it's just a weak belief by itself.

Clause #3 is puzzling to me - the rules disallow saying that, for example, "foo is believed to be the best bar" - but somehow, "foo is believed to be the best bar, but baz claims otherwise" is OK? This holds water only if the first statement, a majority opinion, belongs to a body of common, undisputed knowledge that needs no proof in the first place ("grass is green", "Beethoven is generally regarded as one of the greatest composers") - but if so, this should be the rule by itself, I see no need to mention the prerequisite of contrasting common knowledge with anything.

Sure, common sense applies, but then, why do we need to mention such weak examples at all? --lcamtuf 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited the section according to this very correct criticism, but the examples were restored. Would somebody care to defend them here? --AceMyth 18:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that bullshit is entirely restricted to bswiki, wherever that is. No rule is absolute, and I thot it was very neat to spell out exceptions; it quells dissent. We are not computers, so we don't like following rules for bots. What might seem like an obvious exception to you, might be a pain-reliever to a newbie like me. I wrote an exception especially for people attuned to hypocrisy. The point of this policy is clarity, even if that makes bullshit stink. I don't see any of my text. It might be appropriate for this policy to be dynamic, sort of like a police crackdown. BrewJay (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

About the tag
One of the problems with this policy is the way the tag for it is phrased. As written, it says "The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words", which implies a process where an editor reads an article, has a suspicion that it's got too many weasel words in it, and sticks the tag on it. However, I doubt very much that's the way things actually occur. A better approximation of what happens might be this: an editor reads an article, is outraged or annoyed at what he or she perceives to be weasel words, and therefore sticks a tag on it. If that's the case, and I think it highly likely that it is, then the use of "may be compromised" is, in fact, an example of weaseling, and a better construction would be "An editor found this article to contain weasel words which compromise its neutrality or factuality." In fact, similar phrasings should be used in a lot of Wikipedia cleanup tags, since they presumably indictate a definite value judgment by an editor concerning the content of an article, and not a mere suspicion by the editor that the violation may exist.

By the way, I'm of the opinion that way too many articles on Wikipedia are tagged, that the tags are too prominent, and that Wikipedia's functionality is in some measure compromised by rampant tagging. Cleanup tags are (or should be) essentially an internal administration matter, and there's no particular need for them to be highly visible to the casual user. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good point. There are way too many drive by-taggings out there, and there is virtually no pressure on taggers to motivate their actions. Tags should be a last resort for very problematic statements after they have been brought up for discussion. As it is now, even experienced and otherwise sensible editors are adding tags as a way of asserting their opinion in article space.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Post above tagged for attention and response --AceMyth 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

INCORRECT DEFINITION of "Weasel Words"!!!???
I'm baffled by this article, it does not relate any definition of "weasel words" I've ever seen before.

It looks more like an explanation of "loaded language" NOT of "weasel words". There are no sources either!

My understanding is that "weasel word" means: "changing the meaning of a word in the middle of your argument so that your conclusion can be maintained." (bottom of p78 "A Rulebook for Arguments" 3rd Ed. (2000), Anthony Weston, HACKETT Publishing Co.).

It's basically a form of equivocation, isn't it?!

Can we look into this please, as it may be that the title (and links to) and content needs changing; and certainly supporting with some sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.113.23.157 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC). 87.113.23.157 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't the article namespace. The meanings of "verification", "neutral point of view", "fancruft" and many other terms which have grown into use in Wikipedia differ from their classic meanings, and some are even neologisms. This doesn't mean they don't belong. --AceMyth 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merriam Webster and The American Heritage dictionary both define weasel word as something like "a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position." This is consistent with the meaning of the term in the article, and not in your book. As for "loaded language," that's more WP:PEACOCK. (Isn't it quite the coincidence that both the WP policies/guidelines that refer to animals are related to each other?). --YbborTalk Survey! 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. I got "An equivocal word used to deprive a statement of its force or to evade a direct commitment." from American Heritage. Since it's policy, it has to come up with examples of how meaning can be diluted, and foremost of such examples for us is hearsay, however inevitable that might be in biographies about politicians. I think this article is easier to read and better organized than weasel words. The part about a direct commitment isn't relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewhaha@edmc.net (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * AceMyth, you're generally right-on on this page defending the integrity of what is an important guideline. However, it could use a better name.  If it were a neolgism it might be vague, but at least it wouldn't be misleading (confusing).  "Differing from their classic meanings" should itself be held to some standard, unless of course the usage arises organically.  Assuming that's not what happened here (it seems not to be), do the posters who pointed out the misuse have any BETTER IDEAS for a name?  Maybe "vague or anonymous attribution". --will (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As it stands, now. The definition is a bit more specific than "foggy wording", and that's being practical, because it puts limitations on examples. A jeneral definition is in the template as I want to amend it. BrewJay (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Last two paragraphs
I don't understand the last two paragraphs of this article. Is the following an accurate paraphrase? (If so, it might be substituted for the original):

"Avoid weasel words" is just a rule of thumb, and, like any rule of thumb, is subject to exceptions. It is permissible to use weasel words occasionally, if they will improve the rhythm and sense of the text without impairing its verifiability and neutral point of view. Evidence should be cited only for controversial or unusual claims, not for statements that are common knowledge in the field; a sentence like "the sky is often blue" does not need supporting evidence. Do not clutter the text. An article that bristles with trivial footnotes is an incoherent jumble, and encourages the reader to google the subject instead. --Gheuf 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the gist of it. Go ahead and substitute if you feel it makes for a better closing paragraph than what's there now --AceMyth 06:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Copypasted from article
[The section following examples of weasel words] uses weasel words! It uses phrases like "often" and "many" and "almost certain" without citing any actual data or use trends. If we are to conform to this writing style, then the writing style should conform to itself. -(edit by agvulpine)


 * I'll assume good faith here and judge this comment and edit (which contained the audacity of tagging this very guideline as "compromised by weasel words", bordering on a blatant infraction of WP:POINT) the result of excessive pedantry rather than, well, bad faith. This being a guideline, it does not have to conform to the same confines as article space. But even letting that up, is anyone arguing that this is not actually the case? That "clearly" is not often used to slap together a valid chain of reasoning in written form? Clearly, that last section about not blindly demanding references for blatantly obvious things has been conveniently ignored here. --AceMyth 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope we are past this, but the complaint arises from a true difference between this project page and virtually all other WP project pages, something that seems to have escaped the attention of several editors here: This is not an article ABOUT weasel words, for the interested encyclopedia reader.  It is a statement of WP policy, a core principle for WP's existence.  It is thus not subject to POV, stylistic, or other constraints.  Period.  If readers collectively feel that this or other fundamental policies are inappropriate, they must abandon WP.  Vote with their feet, so to speak.  Or mice, in this case.  Jmacwiki (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, user:Jmacwiki, you replied to a post which was not quite one year old! Yes, I think we are past this, if by this you mean just slapping a tag on this guideline, or indeed on any article in mainspace. Editing of this page by thoughtful editors is best practice, per WP:BOLD, and changes to guidelines, which reflect clearer statements of Policies and guidelines, are brought about through discussion on the discussion page.
 * This page has undergone quite a few changes since May 2007, and I hope it will go through some more, though there is no need, anywhere, for drive-by tagging. Thanks for your refreshing viewpoint! Newbyguesses - Talk 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I considered carefully whether to reply to a 9-month-old post. But there seemed to be enough challenging commentary throughout the talk page that I felt the point was worth stating. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Offhanded references to the sky being often-blue will not necessarily demand a citation"
The final section, "Offhanded references to the sky being often-blue will not necessarily demand a citation", seems like a joke to me, since it contains lots of errors and is chock-full of stylistic problems (weasel words, lack of clarity, wandering diction, etc.). But it's been in the article for a while, according to the history, so it's not a new section. But seriously, look at the section's title&mdash;isn't that cloyingly convoluted syntax? I recommend either re-writing that section or nixing it completely. What is it trying to say that the rest of the article doesn't? -Phoenixrod 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rewritten. Hopefully with this rewrite the point should become clearer, as well. --AceMyth 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is way too wordy and confusing
Somebody please shorten it so it's easily understood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.131.87 (talk) 18:11, June 12, 2007 (UTC)
 * Either this guy is a noob, or the article is hypocritical... --Luigifan 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh for goodness' sake. As is discernible from this talk page, apparently EVERYTHING that will EVER be written in this guideline is hypocritical self-contradiction, regardless of technicalities such as what's usually meant by "hypocrisy" or what a contradiction is. Look at me now, having to defend its right to contain participial phrases. We have soared to a new height of pedantry, gentlemen. --AceMyth 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yankees
I changed the peacock terms example back to the Yankees as the Machester United one was misleading and inaccurate. Guest9999 11:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Complaint
Major changes to the project page require discussion on the talk page first.
 * So, where is your explanation of your massive recent deletion? `'Miikka 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was me. My explanation is that the previous version was written in a tone that I personally was rather fond of but frequent visitors to the guideline seemed to regard as an exercise in reading comprehension. I believe all the important content and points have been retained in this new rewrite, but hey, if you feel that some important element of the text has gone amiss, hit the shiny edit button. --AceMyth 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

These poorly written phrases clutter up the project page's message, and should be removed.

The emergence of weasel-worded statements often has its roots in biased or normative statements,

The problem of the weasel words starts when an editor realizes this and attempts to remedy the situation by modifying the statement to at least admit that it is not necessarily factual, e.g

The answers to these questions might very well strongly imply that in essence the statement contains no semblance of neutrality, verifiability, significance or any encyclopedic quality whatsoever - that "some people" stands for, e.g., three enthusiastic travel agents encountered by this single editor in 1998.

Aside from the interference with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, usage of weasel words often begets other issues and problems in the text.

suffering from a massive infestation of weasel words

There are more &mdash; a major rewrite is required. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a tag. Eyu100(t 00:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag, as the guideline is mostly past this requested rewrite, and as far as I understand User:Newbyguesses agrees that if not complete, this rewrite is at least going in the right direction. So sure, more work is always welcome, but I don't think we need a tag (anymore). --AceMyth 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This should show the differences in versions from 30 June to 7 July 2007, with 45 intermediates not shown. Quite a rewrite, and going in the right direction, although any improvements by a bold editor welcomed, and the talk page is available to all. Removing the tag was quite justified,Newbyguesses - Talk 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
A while back on the talk page, someone asked if there was ever a poll that showed consensus. I am making one Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Consensus straw poll. Eyu100(t 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the post referred to, by User:HalfDome, from 17 March 07. FYI, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiding the tag when viewing the webpage
If like me you find the cite and weasel words tags distracting when reading an article, you can choose to personally not display them by modifying your Monobook.css file to have lines like

sup.Template-Fact { display: none; } sup.Template-Current { display: none; } .messagebox { display: none; } .reference { display: none; } .noprint { display: none; }

The noprint line affects this particular tag, the others hide a range of meta information boxes, superscripts and the like. Vicarage 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition too specific
The article has improved in style since I saw it last. Yet, it is still failing to define and describe the phenomenon in its breadth and generality. A couple of examples of mine were meant to illustrate that somewhat, but those were all deleted. So here are some: (the numbers in brackets [1] [etc.] are hypothetical references to relevant authoritative sources.) These are examples of weasel phrases, yet none of them fit the description given by the article now. Ramir 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Montreal is probably the most beautiful place in the world.
 * Research by X [1] suggests that 84.67% of American scientists believe in Truth.
 * The new legislation was met with widespread protest [1][2][3].
 * Because of poor organization and skill [1][2], the army of Zloj was defeated.


 * If the definition of what a "Weasel Word" is supposed to be should be more encompassing than it's now, having a tree-fest of examples illustrating every single possible infraction and completely obscuring the forest in the process would hardly be a good solution. Can you come up with a solid broader definition of the type of fault in a text you're aiming for here? "Weasel Word" will hardly be useful to anybody as a catch-all term for any conceivable fault of descriptive writing that could be linked to typical "culprit" words (to name a few which factor strongly in your examples: Sloppy, nonspecific descriptions; shameless fairness of tone violations; opinion baldly stated as fact; sources misrepresented and taken out of context...) --AceMyth 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest a general definition like:
 * “In Wikipedia, a weasel word is any word, clause or implication that attempts to preserve the formal truth or the appearance of credibility of a statement that is non-neutral, controversial, or plainly false on its own; yet does not add to the specificity or clarity of the statement.”
 * I know, such style is inappropriate for a popular explanation, but such are rigid definitions. It could be shortened to “an uninformative word or phrase that is appended to a statement in an attempt to save the latter from rightful erasure.” Ramir 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that. Do add that in. --AceMyth 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In time I will, unless objections arise. I see the need to emphasise that some weasel words are merely implications, like in the third and fourth of examples above. The bias or falsity of statements is easily exposed by destructuring the sentences; when used as a subordinate clause, a phrase seems more innocent and verified to most readers. Consider:
 * The army of Zloj was untrained and poorly organised . These were the reasons of its defeat.
 * This is outright first-hand POV that has no place in Wikipedia in any form; it cannot possibly be “verified” by any sort of reference. Yet, these very two statements appear convincing and verifiable (indeed, with “authoritative sources”) to many, when written as a compound sentence. So, in this example the “weasel word” is not even a single word, but a syntactic construction that adds no information yet making a statement appear as less of a POV/lie. Ramir
 * The third example uses an extremely flexible quantity specifier (“widespread”, which ranges from two persons to the entire population), also implying that the exact cause of the allegedly widespread protest was the legislation in question (while usually one would be an excuse or a “spark” for a more general political campaign.) Ramir
 * I am tempted to give such examples in the article. About seven will be enough; and only one needs to cover the “many-people-think” type of weasel words, since it is straightforward in contrast to the other kinds that I am trying to expose (weasel-syntax, weasel-causality-words, weasel-references, weasel-implications). So I will wait for further approval/critique before I edit. Ramir 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding some worthwhile examples is a good idea. The draft above is also quite suitable for addition to the lead section, nothing wrong with the tone. These explanatory ideas also, of weasel-syntax, etc. represent an interesting approach.
 * A weasel word sucks the meaning out of the words around it - (Stewart Chapman Chaplin, 1900). Well, they suck the meaning out of a discussion, or out of a particular section of text.
 * In the  locus classicus, one could identify a particular weasel word, and the particular word whose meaning is sucked out (for instance, voluntary negated the meaning of universal in a political phrase of Woodrow Wilson's criticized by Roosevelt in 1916 as an example of weasel words). But in the general case, as user:Ramir points out, it might be a syntactical construction, or an implication, or the order of certain words or syllables which creates ambiguities. Use of "a weasel word" differs from using "weasel words", and from weasel-wording, or weasel-wordiness. The "definition" of weaseling has certainly changed over a century, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, we do not need to provide a definition as such, this is not mainspace. And the backstop is WP:V. In cases where weasel words are an impediment to verifiability, they need to be re-written, and re-written until the text satisfies WP:V (Also WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). u:Newbyguesses - Talk 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your quote from Chapman is good: both clear and authoritative. It supports my initial concern: the article in its present version does not describe the issue adequately. Ramir 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest these assertions:
 * Beyond exception, weasel words are unacceptable in a somber, scientific-style publication like Wikipedia, since their purpose (or their effect, at least) is the obscuration of facts and promotion of subconscious (alogical, meaningless) attitudes.
 * Attitudes like those expressed in Embrace weasel words are intellectually blunt. Their lack of consistency should be exposed and ridiculed. (This I can do easily.)
 * One should look beyond examples and definitions, and recognize the general phenomenon of “weaselspeak”; that weasel words are mere manifestations of it; and that they have elusive substitutes more difficult to notice. It is here, towards the article’s end, where I would give examples of the more subtle weasel-wording, like the third and fourth of my examples above.
 * Ramir 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction- That should be Stewart Chaplin, not Chapman, writing in 1900 in The Century Magazine according to the article Weasel word, my mistake. What might be really helpful, is to supply some examples which illustrate techniques and phrasing that editors can use to replace passages of poor wording, if possible. This page is after all a part of the Manual of Style. Guidance on how to write better articles is what is required, so, continue to refine these ideas and, when ready, be bold.Newbyguesses - Talk 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What I saw last is probably someone's reversion to the most fault-laden and likely examples of foggy terms. Like Ramir says, there are more jeneral definitions. So, I am led to believe that it might be useful to keep this page dynamic, as in a crackdown, which seems natural. Some people will get the idea when the process is mechanical. Some people don't need to be told. Some mechanical processes go awry and trim too much stuff, only because the research isn't being funded. BrewJay (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding one obfuscation to another
In the "Other examples" section under the subsection "convoluted syntax": Citing the following sentence as an example of obfuscation the editor has added another obfuscation, that of which is the "strange little participial phrase". Does he presume that the reader instantly knows which is the participial phrase?
 * "Though not universally, squares are widely regarded as having an even number of sides that has been conjectured by experts in the field to be approximately four" wraps the key point in layers of syntactic obfuscation, leaving it to be harvested out of a strange little participial phrase by the reader".

Wow! Dieter Simon 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * In a case where many critics or people (up to fifty percent) approved the movie and many (up to fifty percent) disapproved of it - How about - (4) Opinion was divided on the movie, some (conservative) critics said it was inaccurate [ref] while others found it convincing.[ref] . All material must satisfy WP:V for starters. It is also correct though to point out that the NPOV policy, WEIGHT and NOT all apply in different aspects of each particular case, which requires finding fresh ways to express matters in each particular case. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, conservative opinion wasn't divided. It was pretty close to unanimously disapproving.  (Not a big surprise: the movie was intentionally partisan.)  Again, though, editors are using WP:WEASEL to object to saying this obvious point.  I'd like to find or add language in WP:WEASEL that discourages overaggressive use that ends up violating other policies. THF 09:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, not sure what could be done there in that article. Seems that, if there is a section called "Controversy" in any article, there will be a controversy about it! The whole piece could be restated (rewritten) - Moore stated his intentions of creating a partisan or radical document, and this was reacted to by critics partial to the status quo with disdain. Or why not call the section "Reactions"? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge templates: exception, or in need of correction?
Have a look at the text for Template:Merge, Template:Mergefrom, and Template:Mergeto. Are these acceptable usages of weasel words, or should they be changed? Perhaps instead of "It has been suggested," the template should incorporate the editing user's name (is that possible?) to say User:So-and-so has suggested...? — Epastore 00:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, and I like your idea, but I don't feel like doing it. In any but the most obvious cases of merging synonyms, it ought to be a thread on a talk page. Merging carefully is such a tricky process, though, that I imajin, if you look hard enough, that you'll find a few examples where someone just did it, and to hell with consensus. If it isn't acceptable, it'll get reverted. Go ahead and try improving the style of language in the templates. If you're not adept at mechanical languages, though, copy them into your user space, first.BrewJay (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"many," "some," "a large number of,"
I have the impression that these three terms and expressions are also, as used by Wikpedians, Weasel words. Am I correct? Should this Project page be edited accordingly?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As I read the page, now, that depends upon whether you're talking about attributions. "Some atoms don't split easily" is a fact. The particles and energy required to split atoms of any particular element is a more useful fact. "Some people say you shouldn't split atoms" is a fact that requires attribution. BrewJay (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"The page contradicts itself" complaint #2748c
"As part of the Manual of Style, this page is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard"

It's a generally accepted standard, in other words "the standard is accepted by most editors"

"Most scientists believe that..." Is an example provided on this very page. The page contradicts itself from the very first sentence.

(a combination of edits by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.141.124 (talk) 01:03, September 16, 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.13.2 (talk) 17:42, September 28, 2007 (UTC) )


 * I am not a lawyer, nor am I formally a philosopher, but I recognize this policy as common debating practice and court procedure. It's about hearsay evidence, word of mouth, and gossip. Perhaps there is some wikification I could put into it. BrewJay (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Applicable even to quotes?
I was wondering if this guideline is applicable even to quotes from third party sources? There's an instance of its use on the Firefox page, as in:
 * On the other hand, LWN also notes that "by some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware".

I was under the impression this is a guideline for Wikipedia authors and to keep up to tabs with the wording in articles, but in this case, the only remedy for this that I can think of is replacing the entire quote? Is that the recommended course of action here to fix this, or is the editor who added the WW template in the wrong here and mistaken in how this guideline applies?

I can not see any word in this article as for this case with quotations, and think it could be an idea to add a consensus on this, because I don't think it's immediately obvious on what applies here. &mdash; Northgrove 08:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I took another look at this, and according to its template page at Template:WW, that tag seem to clearly not be used appropriately, as it's intended for quote revisions to include attribution, which is already included in this case. I'll remove the tag in that article for now with a pointer to the template page. &mdash; Northgrove 08:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I say later on this talk page, yes, even to attributed quotations. If we can't do it, then we shouldn't let others do it, either. Since we're talking about communications software, the question can be answered in a definite manner. It might require a definition of spyware. What kind of information can the software release? Personal? Are users likely to be unaware of those releases? What further information can the information be used to get? All of those questions are more important than hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewhaha@edmc.net (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First section redraft
Propose:

Weasel words is a term used in Wikipedia (and generally, see Weasel words) to refer to unspecific disclaimers attached to what otherwise would be claimed statements of fact in order to turn them into true statements of opinion. Usually, weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc.. Additional "weasel" words sometimes allow a statement to be implied when it is no truer than its inverse and sometimes imply that the statement is more contraversial than it is. The problem with weasel-worded statements isn't that they are false; the problem is that they are chosen to imply something which they do not say. For example, an editor might preface the statement "Montreal is the best city in the world" with a disclaimer: "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world". This is not untrue: some people do say that Montreal is the best city in the world. The problem is that the reverse is true as well (some people say Montreal is the worst city in the world), and it is thus easy to write a misinformative, slanted article composed of nothing but 'facts' like these, using Wikipedia to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda. All it takes is for somebody to add "Critics have asserted that..." to a statement, and there is a danger that the casual reader will take their word for it. Equally "some people claim that The beatles were popular" unnecesarily raises a (false) question about something which is better without the preface, and expresses a tacit counter POV.

If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement. If there is a genuine opinion make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is "some"? If you consider the different answers these questions might have, you can see how meaningless the "some people say" qualification is. To assist users in deciding how to attribute ideas more precisely, the Wikipedia verifiability policy provides specific criteria for the support a statement must have for it to remain in an article unchallenged. This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles, and it is this policy that weasel words undermine.

any views?

--BozMo talk 12:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll be bold and do it. --BozMo talk 08:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this page to be quite well written and clear. (Not perfectly, but "quite well".) Can we move past the witty "gotcha's" and aim for something that's simply informative to intelligent people who want to contribute usefully to WP?

Now let me ask a question that seems to be relevant for this section. [Fair warning: I'm quite new to editing WP.]  In an article about biological evolution, I might write:

"Most scientists accept the theory of evolution."

No, I haven't any citations at all, nor do I KNOW of any published sources that contain genuine survey results to verify that (and they probably would have too many caveats to be useful anyway). So is that sentence weasel-worded?

Now, I have been a practicing natural scientist for a few decades. In that time, I'm not sure I have EVER encountered another practicing natural scientist who didn't accept the theory. [Your mileage may vary!] Also, I can defend the theory on broad and solid logical grounds (not merely narrow and challengeable observational ones).

As written, then, the sentence is actually far weaker than it deserves.

Or perhaps I am relying on "original research" (and highly anecdotal at that)? It seems to me, though, that neither of these objections really applies. The word "most" actually understates the strength of the consensus. It hasn't turned a highly biased POV into a true but misleading opinion; it's turned what (in my entire professional life) is approximately as factual as gravity into something that SOUNDS like a contestable point.

So what's an intellectually honest and stylistically good solution here?

[PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT asking whether you believe in evolution, or feel a deep-seated need to make some side point about it here. There are plenty of interesting things to say about it. Elsewhere! Nor am I asking for side points about my background & its relevance, nor the style I used to ask my question.] Jmacwiki (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say as a rule that when you can say "most", then it's not a fuzzy statistic. It's well over fifty percent. A court in Canada, regarding Quebec separation issues, once decided that a clear majority is two thirds. And, if someone wanted to challenge you, then I think they'd be forced to use, and

you would find a number over 95 percent. Most is verifiable and substantial. It's still about popular opinion, a topic from which I refrain, but in some articles that might be inevitable. BrewJay (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Example in Error
Contrary to many authors on this talk page, I think the article is a very valuable and well written one. However, the amusing citation example concerning rabies and acupuncture is incorrect in format. If the in-text citation was "Wong et al.", then the corresponding footnote would have three or more authors; as we all know "et al." is the abbreviated form of "et alia" (Latin for "and others"). Two authors would be, for example, "Wong and Smith". A simple oversight, I'm sure, but with everyone else being so nit-picky, I couldn't resist. Turkeylips (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

most likely
Am I being overly critical to think the "most likely" is a weasel phrase in Gustavus Adolphus College?--Appraiser (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a little intellectually sloppy, so I see why you noticed the funny wording. Maybe the low spring-break population "contributed" to the low death count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacwiki (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First sentence
Does not make easy sense to me. "...true statements of opinion"? I believe I understand the intended meaning, but would somebody please clarify so I can be sure? Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * accurate statement of opinion. --BozMo talk 12:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Politics. I hate the topic. I wish it were insignificant, and yet I see that it's part of everyday life. I'm sure there's a policy against opinions in wikipedia, and when you write about Bill Clinton, I don't see an easy way to avoid them. What he did? Fact. The impact he made? Opinion. Waves upon waves of opinion with no easy way to nail down whether it was his impact. BrewJay (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)