Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 6

thought experiments
Let us say that I decide to write a guideline titled "Don't be a butthead". Then can I have a "butthead" tag I can slap on people's writing whenever I think it's clear they're being a butthead? I mean, sure, we could use more convoluted language to express the butthead concept (and no doubt we could find such language out there in the guidlines already), but hey, it's much more important to embrace colorful language, because that will encourage people to actually use the butthead tag more often, and this will help us decrease the frequency of outbreaks of buttheadedness and create a happy, harmonious wikipedia community. Sound good? (Does anyone have any good pictures I can use for my butthead guideline?) -- Doom (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I get the gist of your comment, then I would like to point out that we already have the concept expressed adequately at DICK (see also commons:File:Be civil dont be a dick.svg).  We don't that I know of, have a user warning template for the exact sentiment, though there are similar UW templates like an AGF warning.  But this thread may be off-topic for the weasel words project page...  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Great minds and all that, but the question would be why would my "butthead" guideline have to languish off in the essays while "weasels" have their place in the sun as a full on guideline? -- Doom (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I Hate The Words: Weasel Words!
What is all this nonsense about Weasel Words? I visited an article about Bruno Bettelheim just now and I noted that there was a message at the top which read:

''This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2009)''

I find that wording to be quite offensive. How would you feel, whoever it was who entered that comment, if I charged you with writing a crass, arrogant, rude and offensive statement, which is not even written in good English?

What an appalling expression! "Weasel Words"! This is the sort of language one might expect to hear, bandied about by ill educated, young children in an Elementary School Playground. I do not expect to see such words in a banner headline at the top of an article in what is supposed to be an erudite, educational publication.

I hope that this comment is clear, unambiguous and un weasel word enough for you?

Yours sincerely

Richard Gillard (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Point taken. However, I would like like to point out that there is nothing in policy, guidelines or essays that states that Wikipedia is, or is supposed to be, erudite.


 * It is editing by consensus. I appreciate your concern, and hope that you post it to the Talk page of the article that has you riled about it.  Maybe, you can contribute to help clear the tag.


 * There are many tags at the top of articles that offend me. It only goes to my skills as an editor if I can get them removed.  Or not.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the personal offense taken at the tag on an article the OP only made a handful of edits to one day in February 2007. There are a number of "Who?" and "citation needed"s sprinkled throughout the article which makes it fairly clear where some of the problems are, as do some of the talk page comments.  Additionally, while Wikipedia may be a serviceable reference when it is at its best, being that it is largely written by amateurs, it's not terribly likely to be "erudite" all that often.  Weasel words is a term used by various academics and at least one President, so the ill-educated might instead be those who think it is used by the ill-educated. Шизомби (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys are seriously splitting hairs at this point. We're working on an encyclopedia and in theory we're supposed to be working on writing "better articles".  Being erudite would seem to be part of the business.  Claiming that we don't have to try because we're a bunch of volunteers is a major cop-out.


 * Many, many, people have tried to explain that it is insulting to be accused of using "weasel words" just because you want an attribution tightened up, but you just refuse to hear it.


 * Either drop the pejorative language, or drop the idea that this is about editing by consensus, because you don't have a consensus on this guideline, and you'll never get one. -- Doom (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

who?, etc. vs. citation needed
Are all these templates really necessary? I'd imagine that just tagging phrases with citation needed would be simpler than several tags, and I can't see any real difference between their usage anyway (citation needed is used for unsourced statements, while who? is used for... statements.. that don't... cite a source. Hm. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 09:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The additional tags are good as it allows you to specify precisely what is wrong. For example, I could find a source that says "An important person says X", which would satisfy a general fact tag, but what the tagger actually wanted was a source that said who the person is. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, they are a more specific form of citation needed. They might also be used in cases where there is a citation, but whoever added the statement and citation didn't specify who from the source was saying something; "some people say X" referenced to Reliablesource, Joe. Reliablesource Reliablepublisher (YEAR) doesn't need a reference added (if it's true that somebody did say that in the source) but it does need a who? tag.  However, it would not be necessary to include both tags for a single problematic statement; that would be redundant.  For example, the first edit at the top of this diff is a good one: it removes a who? tag and leaves a citation needed tag.  However, all the subsequent edits in that diff are a problem, since they removed who? tags from statements without sources, leaving unreferenced statements without any tag at all. Шизомби (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How many and weasel words
Should statements like “Many computer users perceive…” considered weasel? If should, have we to mention How many tag here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is, yes, in some cases. Before tagging however, I feel an editor should first consider, using good editorial judgment,  whether other editors can, in any possible universe, remove the tag by becoming more specific.  In all other cases, I "let it ride".  Consider this argument against:  All things categorize either qualitatively or quantitatively.  Given that, and that in some cases the English language uses quantitative words to express the qualities of things, not all cases of quantitative vagueness can be fixed in the language we're writing in.
 * The question boils down to, what standard do you want to hold other editors to? If that standard falls outside the realm of the objectively achievable, then the tag becomes "useless and annoying" since no other editor will ever be able to fix it.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way anyone can know how many computer users are involved in any such statement. So you can't possibly cite the correct number, so you either leave the wording as such as you can't substantiate it, or you change the whole text to accommodate a more precise meaning which might be sourced. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the forbidden phrases are not, by nature, un-neutral
Early in this article, we see the opinion 'If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view'. This is definitely wrong. Consider this example: "Many people regard Gary Snyder as a Beat poet". This is actually quite true, and it's unlikely to be challenged by anyone who knows anything about the subject. If it is shortened to a flat statement such as "Gary Snyder is a Beat poet" it becomes a controversial remark, something which is nearly impossible to support. Far from being the enemy of neutrality, the qualification is necessary to make the statement neutral: so the Forbidden Phrases (e.g. "many people regard") are not always "weaseling".

Note that this issue is unrelated to the question of whether that statement needs a reference to support it. In this particular example, I might argue that it doesn't need a reference, because it's not something that would be challenged by anyone who's familiar with the subject. If you do find someone demanding a reference on something like this, typically they're just people who are hyped up about what this guideline calls "weasel words". -- Doom (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I completely agree.


 * Alas, in practice your final sentence founders on the shoals of the unexpectable: What happens when a social movement (and a large contingent of WP editors) appears that disagrees about the scientific support for evolution or climate change? We already know about those, but imagine it's a new one -- an unpredictable, unexpectable emergence.  For those two examples, some of the disagreement is explained by ignorance, either about the facts or about the nature of science (that it's about falsifiability, not ultimate truth); and some by deliberate manipulation by economically, politically, or ideologically interested parties.


 * But some is explained by a more fundamental difference. For instance, is the narrative that the universe is a few thousand years old, with most (but not quite all!) of the evidence carefully, thoughtfully placed to look like it's much older, the more extraordinary one? or the narrative of several billion years, with no thinking involved whatsoever?  That is, which one do we feel requires extraordinary proof?


 * In these cases, the fact that "it's not something that would be challenged by anyone who's familiar with the subject" is just not helpful in practice. In such cases, the only way that WP, collectively, can sort this out is either (a) browbeat the upstart editors on the Talk pages until they go away -- a technique based on psychology and numbers, not truth or accuracy; or (b) start an edit war and hope your side outlasts the other. :-( Jmacwiki (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "In these cases, the fact that 'it's not something that would be challenged by anyone who's familiar with the subject' is just not helpful in practice." If I understand what you're saying, the only answer is that Things Change: wikipedia articles are intended to reflect a consensus understanding, and they can't be written without assumptions about the audience.  A point might not need a reference one year, but might need one the next.
 * -- Doom (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regrettably, I think that is so. There is one further refinement that might sometimes be helpful: WP articles are also intended to point the interested reader to other WP articles and to independent sources.  Usually, that network of articles will be far more intellectually defensible than the upstarts' objections.  [Analogy: The meaning of words is largely defined by the entire network of their relations with other words, not by their recorded usage in isolation; see the network graphs in Dictionary.com, for example.]


 * That said, we know that upstarts are sometimes proven right, no matter how much evidence The Establishment can muster: Galileo was intimately familiar with the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System -- a model founded on the direct experience of practically everybody -- but challenged it anyway, because his objection was at a suitably deep level where all that direct experience didn't matter.


 * There are some paths through this minefield, but we're deep into epistemology where even heavyweights tread cautiously. I suspect that the usual dynamics of WP in these situations is edit-warring and article-locking, unless a quick, credible reference or two is available.  Jmacwiki (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the essay should have never hit "guideline" status. It's very good stuff to think about as an editor, and to try to practice. But making it a "guideline" sets too high a bar: We're writing in English, full of inherent weasel-isms.  We won't be fixing the language today to conform to this standard.  I'll try to fix weasel words when I see them:  But not all cases are fixable in a way that will be correct prose, nor, as you point out, can be cited properly if fixed.  I don't see it as a real big problem but merely a thought puzzle for the editor who might be challenged enough to  unravel it:  How can I express the topic in the clearest manner for the reader?  This essay points to one of the ways to avoid non-clear language.  In many other cases, I'll just shrug and leave it alone.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is something in what you say. There is a need to explain what a weasel word is with an outline of how other organizations, publishers, etc. consider weaseling, but to lay down a guideline as to its usage in WP is something which attracts as many differences of opinions as there are editors. Some statements just cannot be substantiated by citing sources. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Statements that certain wars "should never have been started", if that is what a sizeable number of opinionholders believe, cannot be sourced, especially if thousands of people believe so. In that case, I cannot see what is wrong with making a general statement that "many people" believe it. The only way out of such a predicament is to lay out the full sourceable facts of how "the war" started and let readers make up their own minds. However, that does not give the full facts.
 * The thing is, the more precise a description or explanation is the more necessary it is to cite sources as to their veracity, and on the other hand the more generalised a statement is the more unlikely it is to be able to source the statement. After all, opinions are facts as well at times, they exist and we cannot avoid them in an encyclopaedia, we cannot pretend they don't exist and that people don't hold these opinions. To do so would leave out the facts that opinions are current in the population at present.
 * So, I agree it was a false move to create a guideline as to how to "avoid" weasel words.
 * Sorry, I forgot to sign my talk section. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I essentially agree with this: "making it a 'guideline' sets too high a bar: We're writing in English, full of inherent weasel-isms". The way I would put it is this page is based on a meta-guideline "Avoid using things that can be mis-used". This is fundamentally flawed, because nearly everything can be mis-used (statistics, references, etc).  -- Doom (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think something has been lost from this discussion. The nasty thing about weaselism is that it is a way for opinionated editors to insert their own POV. For example, "Many people consider XYZ Television to be biased." We should ask ourselves, Is the opposite of this statement equally true? That is, Do many people NOT consider XYZ Television to be biased? If that is the case, this is weaselism and should be removed. Rumiton (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making the point that phrases like "many people consider" can be misused, but we don't disagree about that. Words in general can be misused, and often are. So?  -- Doom (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So...it is futile to try to make a list of weasel words. The question is, Is someone trying to create an atmosphere conducive to their POV without giving hard, sourced information? If they are...they are weaseling. Rumiton (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Correct.  No comment.  Better to bed.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from using phrases like this, as long as you can find a reliable source that supports what you say when challenged. If you can't, then it's got to go. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for rephrasing the sentence I'm disagreeing with. Could you please re-read the opening remark in this section, and try responding to that? -- Doom (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget that snarky response, let me try again: My contention is that this is definitely wrong:  'If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view'.  Your claim that "weasel words" (or as I would put it, "what the article calls weasel words") always need to be referenced is a far weaker claim than the line I am objecting to. Do you agree with me then that these quote-weasel-unquote words can in fact be used without violating NPOV? -- Doom (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "perhaps" a weasel word?
I was wondering about the word "perhaps", which I sometimes see people removing. Is it a weasel word? As an example: "John Smith is perhaps best known for..." It drives me nuts, personally, but don't want to edit it out if this use is considered valid. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well... first of all: (1) If you know something about the subject, and can tell that that "perhaps" is being used to slip in a personal opinion, then obviously you should edit it. (2) If you know a little about the subject, and you suspect that there's something funny about that "perhaps", then you should request that the author tighten it up.  (3) If you don't know anything about the subject, then you should either research it, or ignore your linguistic peeve.  (Another guideline I could write is "avoid tagging up articles you don't know anything about").


 * Anyway, we could say that "perhaps" is a weasel word in the sense that all words are weasel words, but it'll be interesting to see where the fans of this guideline will go with this question. This guideline is really about the dangers of "vague attribution", but they don't want to call it that (and why not exactly, where's the heavy resistance coming from?), so instead they have to keep making up reasons to exclude the whole universe of words that have historically been used for disguising opinion.  Maybe we should start making a list of them? There has been increasing doubts about --; No one is sure what the consequences will be of --;This guideline has become a settled part of wikipedia. -- Doom (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch. I thought it was a simple question when used in my example.  Thanks for your response.  --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, I was going off on some tangents on you. Usually, I might just suggest that you replace the word "perhaps" with "one possibility is --" but that doesn't work very well with your example. Would you feel better if "perhaps" were replaced with "It is likely that"? -- Doom (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion as an editor, the problem in the example you cite is not the word perhaps; it the word best. That word frequently has a problem in the context you describe, and I think should be dropped the second it becomes a matter of opinion rather than "uncontentious fact".  The phrase known for is highly desired because WP:N is staring at us.  But known for does not have to be qualified to hit WP:N, I feel.  In cases where it is opinion rather than "uncontentious fact", I'd remove the whole thing:  both the perhaps and the best.


 * I feel we can only add best where all editors and readers agree there is no contention. The only example I can come up with is "Charles Darwin is best known for On the Origin of Species".  Not a great example, but here's the thing:  I can come up with lots of examples where "best known for" doesn't work:  An example that comes to mind, in Boxleitner's bio, is he best known for Babylon 5 or Scarecrow and Mrs. King or something else?  As an editor I haven't a clue, and would rather remove the word "best" since it would cause opinion to settle down into fact were it removed (it's also incorrect English, as best can only refer to one thing, not a list of things).  I don't think in these cases there is an editor on the face of the planet who actually knows what the person is best known for: The standard for finding out is too high (poll everybody on the face of the planet about if and where they know Boxleitner from and make a statistical chart showing the top known for result).


 * Adding the word perhaps only makes matters worse in the case, not better. I have to conclude that in a case such as you cite, the word perhaps is definitely an attempt to weasel out of the inclusion of the word best.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. You seem to know just what I am trying to say, and you actually phrased the problem much better. I guess it's the use of perhaps with best that feels like a weasel word for me.  I agree with replacing perhaps best known for with plain old "known for".  Perhaps best seems like an opinion.  Your example regarding Bruce Boxleitner is exactly what I am referring to (and a much different situation than Darwin!) Thanks again, you hit the nail on the head with your response. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the most common usages of "perhaps" as well as "probably", is in the etymology sections of a word in encyclopaedias and dictionaries. where there are doubts as whether the word may be a cognate of, or be linked to, another similar word, but where it cannot be categorically proved, cited or whatever that the words referred to are actually related. Well, it seems quite legit, honestly. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think this is a pretty good example: "Charles Darwin is best known for On the Origin of Species". That nails down a case where the phrase "is best known for" is definitely okay, and doesn't really even need to be referenced (though as usual, it wouldn't hurt). It's important to make it clear that you can use language like "best" because there are philosophical hardliners lurking about wikipedia who have trouble shaking the idea that "objectivity" is paramount, and they get queasy whenever you talk about evaluatiing the significance of a subject to human beings. That's often something that needs to be said about a subject: this is why it's important, this is why you should care about it, this is the reason this article exists.


 * To really explore the idiom the OP is talking about ("perhaps is best known for") we do need an additional example in addition to the Darwin, a case where someone is known for multiple things, and one seems more prominent than the other, but the wikipedia author recognizes that there's at least a potential disagreement.


 * We could try Gary Snyder as an example: he was originally known as a poet (he became famous because of some associations with beat writers like Kerouac), but in later decades Snyder wrote philosophical essays about ecologically-related subjects, and became associated with the "deep ecology" movement. You might want to say something like Gary Snyder's later writings are well-regarded within the Deep Ecology movement, but he is perhaps best known as the buddhist poet featured in the Kerouac novel The Dharma Bums.


 * It's difficult to nail down an issue like this precisely enough to drop the "perhaps" entirely -- the popularity of philosopher-poets is not tracked like presidential approval ratings -- and yet it would also be a disservice to the reader new to the subject to skip the point entirely.


 * I think I'm in agreement with Dieter Simon that it's a legitimate idiom: while there is perhaps some reason to be suspicious of uses of the phrase "perhaps", the uses need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. -- Doom (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that other than cases like Darwin, where the statement is uncontroversial, any phrase like "is best known for" would require a citation. Dlabtot (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just it, isn't it? There's nothing wrong with the phrases themselves, though sometimes they do need to be referenced... just like anything else one might say here. -- Doom (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

how should it be worded?
we arecurrently reviewing

or

we currently are reviewing 204.193.81.6 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Currently we are reviewing..." -- Ludwigs 2  04:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate this guideline
When I try to describe vague things accurately, like Terrorism, with terms such as "it is often considered to be x, y, z..." my wording gets TAGGED with "weasel words". I find this insulting because it suggests I'm writing like a weasel, and it indirectly compares me to an animal. I am a competent writer; things I write about are vague, or the references themselves are uncertain. Accordingly, in the interest of accuracy, I'm forced to use words like "often considered to be..." -- this is accurate, since there is much disagreement about a subject as fraught with pejorative meanings such as "terrorism". But I don't think it's fair to allow others to tag sections of my writing with an insulting accusation of "weasel words". It violates Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to provide sources that say "it is often considered to be...", rather than coming to your own conclusions that this is the case. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm forced to use words like.. no, you are not.  Have you considered simply NOT adding content that is not verifiable to reliable sources? Dlabtot (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you two considered the possibility that you're actually philosophical extremists? The notion that everything we say here must be objectively verifiable is completely wrong.  It's not even the case that everything we say here has to be referenced-- actually you're supposed to reference things that are likely to be challenged.  One of the problems with this guideline is that encourages people to issue inane challenges.  Even if it is the case that a vague reference should be tightened up and supported with a formal reference, complaining about the author's language is wrong, and there are actually many other ways of requesting a citation of a point.  You also haven't addressed Tomwsulcer's point that it is obviously, transparently, indisputably insulting to have a "weasel" tag slapped on your work when you're actually doing your best to fairly represent some difficult issues. -- Doom (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Those with such fragile egos that they can't bear criticism of their work obviously do not belong here. Dlabtot (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You could convince me that that's a good way of running a site, but that's just not the way wikipedia was set-up. If you're going to play by house rules, you play like this: Civility, No Personal Attacks, Do Not Bite the Newcomers... -- Doom (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you posted those links, none of which are relevant to this discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * dlabtot: I think doom was referring to your 'fragile egos' comment, and the general snootiness of your posts. I'll be more direct: I dislike the implication that 'weak willed' editors should leave wikipedia, because ultimately that would leave wikipedia in the hands of obnoxiously self-righteous trolls.  If you cannot be civil to people you dislike, then perhaps you have no place on wikipedia.  understood?  -- Ludwigs 2  04:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for so clumsily expressing myself that you were able to draw such an wildly inaccurate inference, so completely unrelated to anything I believe or meant to express. Our policy clearly states: If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them. Dlabtot (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry but your "Editing Wikipedia isn't for everyone; Those with such fragile egos that they can't bear criticism of their work obviously do not belong here" is not really subject to a whole lot of misinterpretation. If that's not what you meant to say, then I suggest that you take more care with your wording in the future.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is. As I pointed out, our policy is quite clear that editors should expect criticism of their work.  I stand solidly behind my comment, and additionally completely support your right to disagree with me, although you have no rational basis to do so, and have not actually registered disagreement with anything I've said, as far as I can tell. Dlabtot (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * my point? see Trifecta, with special attention to point 2.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The unintended irony would be funny if it weren't so sad. Dlabtot (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * what makes you think it was unintended? When I'm a dick to someone it's usually intentional (not my preferred way of doing things, but sometimes it's called for).  the only sad thing here is your seeming inability to recognize (or at least admit) that you were being one yourself.  For future reference, Dlabtot, the proper response to confrontation like this is to apologize and rephrase - It costs you nothing, and it will save you getting hassled by overly-righteous people like myself.   Now, I think I've tortured you enough on this, so I'm going to let it drop. -- Ludwigs 2  16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel 'hassled' or 'tortured', lol. Nor am I concerned in the slightest with your opinion of me as a person. I'm just here to help write an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we all need to expect (and perhaps welcome) criticism, but this is different from tolerating insults. It is perhaps somewhat insulting to accuse someone who dislikes insults of having "fragile egos". I just re-read the above exchange, and I do indeed think that I have a "rational basis" to disagree with something that you've said.

Let me try again: there are two different ways you can set-up discussion groups. There's one style where direct, honest speech is welcomed, and the burden is on the listener to try to rise above any perceived insult ("grow some skin"). In the other style the burden is placed on the speaker to make an effort to be polite, to avoid insult, and so on. Wikipedia is clearly in the second camp. You appear to think it should be in the first camp. -- Doom (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing insulting about this guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So accusing someone of being a weasel isn't insulting in the brave new world of wikipedia newspeak? -- Doom (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in a pointless debate about a strawman. This guideline has nothing to do with "accusing someone of being a weasel". Dlabtot (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And now who's weaseling? -- Doom (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternates to "weasel words":
This is a list of possible alternate names for what this guideline at present calls "weasel words". Feel free to edit it in place -- Doom


 * implicit attribution
 * vague phrasing
 * evasive words
 * unnecessary vagueness
 * mass attribution
 * vague attribution
 * indefinite attribution
 * slippery sources
 * non-specific sources
 * rumor mongering

Some adjectives:


 * fuzzy
 * unsupportable
 * unquantifiable
 * evasive
 * ambiguous
 * misleading
 * hand-waving
 * waffling

Some nouns:


 * hearsay
 * statements
 * credit
 * pointer
 * cite

Suggestions for positive injunctions, e.g. "you should attribute opinion":


 * attribute opinion
 * clear language


 * Right, Doom, where, if I may ask, are you going with this, having asked me the same question in a section above? Yes there are many synonyms for 'weasel word', possibly some of which having a slightly different connotation, as I keep saying it doesn't alter the fact that the term 'weasel word' exists. So, you want to wipe out a word which is used much more frequently than any of these "alternatives", because you want to "clean up" the English language, I presume?. Well, bowdlerization isn't part of Wikipedia. We try to describe what we find, we don't invent new terms, phrases and expressions because they don't suit us. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to explain this several times now:
 * The term in use here has been repeatedly objected to as being pejorative... this has happened since the inception of this page, but the criticism was repeatedly ignored.
 * The term in use here is in fact NOT STANDARD ENGLISH. It's a new, made-up definition for an existing piece of slang.  There's an invented, specialized meaning in use here.
 * I have in fact read the article Weasel Words, and it describes the English slang pretty well, and there is a disconnect between that meaning and the meaning in use over here.
 * No where have I ever suggested that we need to clean up the English language. (In fact, I would contend that it is this guideline which is trying to demonize a very common, and rather useful, English idiom.)
 * -- Doom (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Imperative
"It is imperative that ..."

A sentence beginning this way sounds like a use of weasel words. I just slapped a who says tag on one a moment ago. 

If there's a better AWW tag than this, let me know. Or if there's a way to reword the sentence, please teach me! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well normally I would think that a "who says" is exactly the right question, but in the actual context it was already entirely clear. They're making a technical point about what needs to be done for a particular blood test to work, and the sentence in question actually has two references on it already:


 * It is imperative that any investigation into the suspected use of date rape drugs involve an immediate urine test and possible a blood test, as waiting too long to test for the presence of drugs may cause false negatives, because these drugs are quickly metabolized and eliminated by the body


 * I think you're letting a linguistic peeve get the better of you-- the original sentence is probably okay. -- Doom (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-name this page?
I suggest changing the page to a name that has less jargon, on the grounds that: (1) many people do not know the meaning of the term "weasel words" and the title of the page may distract people from the content of the policy, and (2) perhaps more importantly, the term unnecessarily slanders these beautiful, graceful animals. Perhaps "Specify where viewpoints come from" or some such title? Also, allow me to share some photos of weasels:. Let's lay off on these creatures. -- AFriedman  (talk)  05:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly agree with you, but I'm one of the few critics of this guideline who's willing to hang around here and argue the point. If you look up above, you'll see an "RFC" where the straw-poll went against doing a re-name.  A lot of the commenters seem to like the colorful language of "weasel words" (in spite of it being non-standard and insulting)-- maybe a specific proposal to re-name it something really snazzy would go over better. -- Doom (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd personally like to see it changed because it's factually wrong. it's not single words that are the problem, but slippery phrasing designed to mislead.  the word 'Some' is not objectionable; the phrase 'Some people say' is. -- Ludwigs 2  04:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. It's not "weasel words", but "weasel phrases".  But phrases are composed of words: I think the plural "words" lets it squeak by. (Myself I wouldn't even say that the phrase "Some people say" is objectionable, it's some of the uses of the phrase that has problems.)-- Doom (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of a snazzy phrase, I've come up with "Avoid slippery sources." This has as much alliteration as "weasel words," doesn't offend weasels (and the people who like weasels), and is more descriptive of the actual phenomenon. -- AFriedman  (talk)  02:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, "slippery sources"... well I can't say it grabs me, but then you don't need to be impress me. The alliteration might help put it over, and I do like using the word "sources" since that's closer to the actual subject at hand.  My original try was "mass attribution" (I liked the assonance), but I was persuaded that "vague attribution" is more precise.  Perhaps something like "non-specific sources"? -- Doom (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not factually wrong, non-standard, or insulting. It could be renamed I guess, but do read up on "weasel words" outside of Wikipedia; it's not something Wikipedians made up, as the alternatives probably would be. "How many people know what it means?" is an odd complaint to make on an Encyclopedia where what it means is in fact Wikilinked; the only people who don't know what it means are thus people who don't care to learn what it means. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "It's not factually wrong, non-standard, or insulting." Would you care to present an argument to back-up any of these flat assertions? The people who've been insulted by a "weasel words" tag clearly disagree with you about it not being insulting, and myself, I've repeatedly made the case that it's non-standard, and that some things said in the article are clearly "wrong". (Do you think you could read up on the debate here, or should I go through it all again for you?)
 * Now myself, I have indeed read up a bit on the use of the term "weasel words", and this article is about something else: the "vague attribution" idiom under discussion here is a different concept.
 * It is certainly true that in principle any set of terms could be defined, but in practice, sticking to standard usage is clearly advisable. -- Doom (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:NEO: "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people." -- Doom (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Doom, "neologisms", for "weasel word"? Sorry, but what world are you living in? Yahoo! gives you 189,00 for "weasel word" (in quotes) and 1,650 for "vague attribution". Google has 13,200 "weasel word" but only 1,380 "vague attribution". Bing even has 10,600,000 "weasel word" and 4,110,100 "vague attribution". Don't ask me how these totals are arrived at, but a neologism "weasel word" it ain't. I think if you went round asking people what a "weasel word" is and on the other hand what a "vague attribution" you might just get the surprise of your life. I know you prefer "vague attribution" but "weasel word" is the much more common word. Collins English Dictionary (2007) defines "w. w." "informal intentionally evasive or misleading speech; equivocation". What could be clearer than that? There is of course the actual Wiki article weasel word which gives some hints as to what it is. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again: while "weasel words" is a relatively common, established piece of slang, this guideline is about a different concept. Take a look at the weasel words article, and compare it to the list of Forbidden Phrases... there are many kinds of "weasel words" that aren't on the list aren't there? For that matter, take a look at the first few sentences of this guidline: as written, it admits that it's using a special wikipedia-only meaning.  IT's an old word, pressed into service to describe a new concept (which may-or-may-not be related to the old concept): that's a neologism, if you ask me. If I defined "butthead" to mean "someone who still wants to argue about the weasel words page", we could find many-many web-hits on the word "butthead", but it would still be a new usage, and a new term.  -- Doom (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well we could always aim for some more common idioms: 'waffling' or 'waffle wording' (assuming waffles will be less insulted by this than weasels), or maybe 'hand-waving'. would something along those lines work?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are multiple goals we're shooting for, and one is greater precision: there are all kinds of "waffling" and "hand-waving", but this guideline is about one particular idiom (and myself, I don't agree that it always deserves to be dismissed as a "weasel" or "waffle" or "hand-wave"). -- Doom (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW there have been three previous archived discussions on this. Try search the archives at the top of this page for "rename". Hard to find a phrase which consensus thinks is better as I recall: lots of options each with a small number of supporters. --BozMo talk 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just skimmed through the archives looking for past suggestions. (Can I ask why you thought this was a good idea? Did I miss any of your favorites?)  Anyway, people should feel free to edit this material in-place and add things that I missed (this being a wiki and all): See "Alternates to 'weasel words' below. -- Doom (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW personally I would be opposed to change the page name because I have not seen a proposal which is better, and because people know it and use it. It is a complicated concept which some people don't get but finding phrases for simpler concepts doesn't really help much, there is a definite mischevious/sneaky element. The phrase "weasel out of" has nearly a million hits on Google which is a lot for an exact three word idiom. I would not however rule out someone turning up a better phrase. --BozMo talk 09:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Myself, I think there some wikipedians who think "weasel words" is a crystal clear synonym for "vague attribution" only because they've gotten used to it. To someone coming from the outside, it's not at all transparent.  (But then, I think for people who developed some facility with factual writing before coming to wikipedia, the entire concept seems kind of wonky... it's an odd linguistic peeve elevated to doctrine.) -- Doom (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, look, we can name the page whatever we want, and leave 'avoid weasel words' as a redirect. that's not really an issue. If we were going to rename this page with an accurate title, I'd say something like Implicit Attribution Which has no snaz but is directly on point. the real question is whether we can get people to give up a cutesie name for a more informative one. -- Ludwigs 2 03:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Weasel words" is hardly a cutesie name. There is nothing cutesie about the gratuitous slander of such a beautiful animal!  -- AFriedman   (talk)  03:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll throw in a quote from the Simpsons (one I added to this page a loooong time ago, but which got removed). about Bart: ''"Don't discourage the boy, Marge.  Weaseling out of things is important to learn.  It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel."  -- Ludwigs 2  05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been said above, this guideline is a waste of time anyway, as "weasel word" really should be used in the context of evasion, not telling the whole truth, but at least it does convey that evasion. While it can be well defined, everyone seems to want to clean up the English language again. Bowdlerization surely isn't the answer. No matter how you rephrase it, re-coin the phrase, someone will always find fault with a newly invented version. "Weasel word" has been around, and it has little to do with the real weasel. We mustn't let our etymology get to our heads here. It is and has been about "evasion of the whole truth", not telling the whole truth, leaving certain things unsaid which should be mentioned, and that is more than just "vagueness". Poor weasel as you say, but we anthropomorphize so many other animals, and yet know the difference between the real animal and what we apply to it. Or can we really be as stupid as that we think that a weasel is holding something back it doesn't want us to know? No, it is part of the rich heritage of the English language. "Vague attribution" does seem a pale shade of it. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Luckily, encyclopedias are not the only repository of the heritage of the English language, and what we might exclude here has a chance to live elsewhere.
 * You do realize that this entire guideline is about excluding a common English idiom from wikipedia? -- Doom (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if that is what is intended - getting rid of a common English idiom from Wikipedia - then it really makes it a bad guideline, because you cannot ban an idiom from an encyclopaedia and it is not our business to do so. If it is well established then it exists and needs explanation rather than prescribing against or even proscribing it. The trouble with "weasel word" is that it has so many near-synonyms - and all those synonymic terms suggested have too (if we were to use them) - which is of course where we came in.
 * Including the passive and middle voice, the personal pronoun "one", the neuter pronoun "it", "vague generalization", etc., in the article weasel word as well as this guideline should only be mentioned if we cite the sources which include them as well as those opposed to them.
 * Therefore the only conclusion I can come to is to improve the article itself by citing the sources of those who assert that the various sections are valid, and to leave out those which cannot be sourced. You could then bring in a separate statement or even section that some sources prefer the term "vague attribution" to "weasel word". But where does that leave the guideline? I think it should not be used at all as the recommendations, where they apply, could be part of the main article. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an article, it's a style guideline. It doesn't need sources, nor does it need renaming. Rather, editors need to accept this helpful advice in the spirit it is given, and simply avoid using weasel words in articles.  The pretense that there is something uncivil or insulting in pointing out this type of bad writing is ridiculous. Dlabtot (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, this is about the article Weasel Word and recommending in it what is said above, rather than a separate guideline which people agreed isn't necessarily a good guideline as also mentioned above. Anyway, this getting ridiculous, and is going to go on and on, and nowhere. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't say I know where any of this is going, but I think it's both ridiculous and really interesting. If you want a "position statement" from me: I think the entire guideline is ill-conceived (though it might make sense as an essay), but I would say that the case against calling this usage "weasel words" is very strong.


 * On the side issue of "do guidelines need references?", actually guidelines are held up to a standard as tight, or tighter than "Neutrality": they're supposed to reflect "consensus". -- Doom (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want anything from anybody. For the third time I am stating that there is an article called Weasel word, now just in case people don't know what a word in blue writing means, it is a word which exists as a separate Wikipedia article. That separate article explains what a weasel word is. I am not, repeat not talking about this guideline, I am talking about a separate article. It would help if we would read each other's replies. All I am saying is that we don't need a separate guideline because it, like any of its synonyms or near-synonyms refers to how it is to be used, when in fact it is already explained in the article - once again - weasel word! Please click on it and you will find out. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In the summary I should have said "there is a separate article called weasel word. Please click on it. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I know you've said a lot here, but it still isn't clear to me what you mean exactly. I think what's going on is that you're starting with the presumption that "Avoid weasel words" is a good name for a guideline, but this guideline just isn't it, and you're noodling around the idea of doing a complete re-write that would cover the whole range of possible meanings of "weasel words" (rather than the narrow one in use in the guideline as written).  Is that anywhere near your take on this?
 * (Having re-read what Dieter was saying several times, I think his idea is that the article Weasel Words is better than this guideline, and maybe the material in the guideline could be merged into the article Weasel Words somehow, and then perhaps the guideline should go away.) --Doom (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Myself, I'm being much less ambitious... I suspect that this existing guideline is a mess in various ways, but I'm trying to think of smaller changes that might at least improve it a little. A few people have suggested the possibility of renaming, so for now, I've been going with that idea, looking for alternative names... --Doom (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Consolidation?
Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce audit
The point addressed by this page is important, but I think our contributors would be better served if this material were incorporated into WP:Words to avoid, or a revamped Expressions to avoid. As Doom has correctly observed, this page is improperly titled given the conventional use of the term weasel word. While the novel meaning it is given here is now widely recognized among experienced Wikipedians, it is both effectively a neologism and, as far as many neophyte contributors are concerned, pure jargon. We strive, of course, to avoid both neologisms and jargon. The crucial point we want to focus on is to avoid vague attribution, yes? I suggest that a section in Words/Expressions to avoid would (a) be the most effective means of conveying that message and (b) by way of consolidation, help us maintain the quality of the MoS.—DCGeist (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it would help to improve weasel word (and weasel word for that matter, which lacks citations), to help clarify matters. I continue to be uncertain as to whether "vague attribution" is any better or simply new neologism/jargon (jargologism? :-D ) for old. I'm not adverse to renaming the page or merging it, but think there's still some matters like these to be addressed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) How do you anticipate that improving the article on weasel word will help us improve our style guideline and clarify the need to avoid vagueness in attributions?
 * (2) The basic meaning of the phrase "vague attribution" is readily apparent to anyone sufficiently competent in English to contribute to the English-language Wikipedia. It can not reasonably be considered jargon or a neologism.—DCGeist (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you're not really asking, as your assertions are just as ridiculous as the questions. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point from the very beginning has been that there was really no need for a "style guideline" for it, since the whole concept of "weasel word" is morally wrong. Since the usage of weasel words was disputed from the start, why create a guide line for it. It was the lack of any ethical reasons using the technique of weasel words in first place, and which is explained in weasel word that would make it too ridiculous to publish a guideline for it.
 * To call it "vague attribution", or any of the other of the bowdlerisations would make it worse than ever. As Gertrude Stein might have said "a weasel word is a weasel word is a weasel word". If readers are looking for "weasel words", they are trying to find "weasel word" and not "vague attributions". They know the word "weasel word", they don't know "vague attribution", as has been said many times in these discussions.


 * Somewhere above you will find it contended that there are thousands and thousands of entries in Google for "weasel word", there are comparatively very few entries for "vague attribution". So, how many readers would be searching for "vague attribution" and how many for "weasel word"?


 * As for this neologism (or neology or new coinage) business, for goodness sake, "weasel word" was first used in 1900, in other words 110 years ago. How long do you need to incorporate it into the language properly?


 * The problem with "words to avoid/expressions to avoid" is that you are missing the wole point, it isn't the words or expressions which are wrong, it is the contexts in which they are used. "Weasel words" are used to avoid truths, are creating half-truths when the truth should be spoken, whatever the words or expressions used. That is why I started by saying "not telling the truth" as a weasel word does, does not need a style guideline, it would almost be like saying it being a style guideline for not telling the truth. Does anybody need that? I don't think so.


 * I suggest, therefore, that if the article "weasel word" lacks sources then we should sit down and get hold of these sources and cite them, to substantiate what has been said there rather than creating a spurious guideline for "weasel word", "vague attribution", "words/expressions to be avoided", etc., etc. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for this style guide
A proposed replacement for this style guide can be found here Gnevin (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Certain weasel words...
"Certain weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice" Is that supposed to be a joke? Is the example "It has been said that" any more weaselly than "Many have said..." (or, obviously, "Certain weasel words require...") and is either actually an example of certain weasel words "requiring" something? 217.28.5.247 (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Rock the !Vote!
Please read WP:Words to watch, then weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch. You can determine the future of this page.—DCGeist (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposal has been accepted. Within a few hours, this page will be redirected to the new Manual of Style guideline Words to watch.—DCGeist (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection
I object very much to this page move and merge. The talk page history did not give enough clues to people who chose to watch this page (which needs watching because some people do not understand it) that there was an RFC merge in progress. With all respect titles like "Rock the Vote" give a certain indication of the personality of the poster and are not likely to conceal proper proposals. If the community wants to merge this into a couple of lines on another page I can live with that but I move that we leave it a little while with a clear edit summary here pointing it out. --BozMo talk 19:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If this page is of particular interest to someone, it is their responsibility to look at it from time to time. There are not so many posts to this Talk page that keeping up to date should pose any problem. A pointed reference to a !Vote in a section header is a strong indication that something significant is going on. As are the addition and presence of templates atop both the Talk page and the content page.


 * That said, while discussion revealed broad agreement about merging the involved pages, if there was any hesitation, it involved this one. I have no problem with postponing the redirect for a bit. Feel free to craft the edit summary as you see fit.—DCGeist (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats fair enough (aside from the particular interest comment which assumes quite a lot). Lets leave it for a few days and see if anyone turns up and thinks we should keep the page and otherwise merge it. If the merge happens at some point I might also make some proposals on expanding the paragraph. --BozMo talk 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)