Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Passive voice

..Passive voice. Weasel words are often in the passive voice, which weakens the effectiveness of written prose..

Is this not terribly POV? There is no objective argument that can be made that one piece of grammar is better than another. It is merely an opinion (dare I say prejudice?) that some people are trying to force down everybody's throat. In fact a good argument can be made that extirpation of the passive voice from one's language reduces its expressiveness and potential for nuance. Of course, not all speakers of a language achieve proper command of all its expressive potential, but should that really be made the norm? Passive voice is e.g. a necessary and very useful component of the scientific language. Yes, that is my Point Of View. If you do not think so, that is Your Point of View. af:Gebruiker:Jcwf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.193.141 (talk) 17:34, January 6, 2006 (UTC)

The passive voice should be avoided. Readability and liveliness are decreased whenever it is used.
But on a more serious note: nobody, I hope, seriously advocates completely abolishing the passive voice. (I say this knowing that there will no doubt be ignorant folk who do advocate this.) This is neither possible nor desirable. What is true is that indiscriminate use of the passive voice hollows out the effectiveness of prose, especially in the common case of a long string of weasel phrasings, lending an air of objectivity to thinly disguised subjectivity. I do agree that the guideline condemns the passive voice a little too baldly (it certainly doesn't always weaken the effectiveness).
As an aside, of course it's POV. What do you expect from a style guideline? An end to flame wars? It's not an article. You're plainly wrong when you say there's no objective argument that can be made for one piece of grammar being better than another, though. The trick is to lay down what you want to measure "better" by. Subsequently measuring that is probably difficult, but there's no denying that some ways of writing will be better than others, depending on your goal and target audience. 82.92.119.11 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
yea. "Passive voice should be avoided", you said, in passive voice. 219.77.44.181 13:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed the "passive voice" remark. All that can be said on that subject with any justification is that some people consider the passive voice inelegant in certain circumstances. The bare statement that the passive "weakens the effectiveness of written prose" is at best a point of view and at worst complete bollocks and either way has no place in a guideline project page. Ou tis 21:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a style guide, so it represents a consensus of multiple points of view. The passive voice allows an action to be descibed without its actor, as is "mistakes were made" rather than "I made mistakes". Most style guides which take up the topic of weasel words suggest avoiding the passive voice. My text is less judgmental but makes the point how passive voice is related to weasel words. patsw 02:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I still can't agree that any reference to the passive belongs here (though to avoid an edit war I'll wait for a reply before I edit the page again). All right, certain manifestations of 'weasal words', including some of the listed examples, involve the passive, but the comment thereon is under "Other problems", alongside "convoluted syntax", "repetition" etc. (some of these "other problems" seem to be dubious and to some extent to imply each other and so I'm not convinced that this section of the page is necessary at all, but let that pass for the moment), which suggests that the passive voice is a problem in itself (remember that what I first deleted stated that the passive "weakens the effectiveness of written prose"), not that it is one example of weasal words used to circumvent the NPOV policy (or it wouldn't be under "Other problems") - that an additional problem with weasal words is that they are often in the passive voice rather than that a problem with the passive voice is its potential for use in weasal words. For my part I'm not convinced that even the latter is so generally true as to be noteworthy, but I'm sure the former is cobbler's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ou tis (talk • contribs) 22:07, June 4, 2006 (UTC)
I've reinstated the "passive voice" point, since I think it's important, but I've used the tips presented in this guideline to make it more NPOV. There are some embedded values in good written English that eventually hit a level of arbitrary grammatical, spelling, and composition rules. The active voice is not necessarily better than the passive voice; a lot of people who care about written English think it's better, though. --ESP 02:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that those insisting on including "passive voice" as a "weasel word" are not comprehending what the "weasel word" proscription is about. The purpose of this guideline is simple: to avoid language that suggests conclusions that are not in fact valid or supported by suggesting agreement that does not exist. It's true that the passive voice is often not the best choice of style, but this is wholly unrelated to the encyclopedic concern of weasel words. For example, changing the sentence from "The president made mistakes" to "mistakes were made" does not in any way invalidate the truth of the statement. It also does not add false authority to the statement. Contrast this with a phrase like "Some people believe", which does add false authority and is a textbook weasel word. Passive voice does not belong in this category. The Crow 03:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No one is saying that passive sentence is necessarily weasel words; that's clearly not the case. The point is that some weasel words, as well as being problematic for NPOV reasons, also force a sentence into the passive voice. "John Doe says that ..." is in the active voice, but if you want to state the opinion without a source, you have to use the passive voice: "It has been said that ...". Along with being bad for NPOV reasons, this is bad for readability and style. It is a relatively minor point but it is worth making here. The original complaint was that the passive voice was not "always" bad, which I think is true and I've tried to temper the passive voice point accordingly. --ESP 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi hokkaido C, haven't you just shown exactly how the passive voice is misused as a weaseling way of letting "the president" of the hook in your example? If you said "the president made mistakes" there is absolutely no two ways about it as to whom you mean. As soon as you say "mistakes were made", nobody is any the wiser as to whom you mean. Nobody can accuse you of having libelled anyone, you are in the clear. It could be the whole government, it could be someone else in another country, it could be the world. The passive voice is a beautiful way of avoiding saying exactly who has been doing what, who is at fault of having made mistakes and whoever it was has got away with it. It's as easy as that.
As said in the Wiki article Weasel word the passive voice can be a perfectly legitimate way of distancing yourself from the statement you are making, but it most certainly can also be one of the finest ways of making statements which cannot be substantiated, because as in this case nobody will actually know who has made the mistakes, and much worse, a statement dressed up in the passive voice is likely to allude to people who are probably quite innocent of having made mistakes.
It is not a question of invalidating the truth of the statement regarding "what has been done", we know what has been done, mistakes have been made, it is a question of invalidating the truth of "who made them". Dieter Simon 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not invalidate the truth as to who made them. It simply omits information. The passive voice does not under any circumstances ever add falseness to a given statement. It is true that if you want to deceive, the passive voice may be an ideal vehicle for doing so, but then again so may commas, the conditional voice, dependent clauses, a well-placed ellipsis... the list goes on and on and on. There is nothing inherently weaselly about the passive voice. However, I will buy what ESP said. Weasel words encourage use of the passive voice, which stylistically often is not the best choice. The Crow 00:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that there is no merit whatsoever in including a reference to the passive in this article. If a particular 'weasal' remark is in the passive it will be clear enough from what it actually says that it is one, without anyone's having to infer it from the grammatical voice of its verb. That one particular book on style, as cited in the present version (which I shall edit if someone doesn't convince me of its merits very soon), dislikes the passive voice (and I should appreciate more detail as to exactly what it says on the subject, as I do not possess the tome in question; I very much doubt that it simply advises never to use the passive, and if it does then it is a very bad book) does not mean that a Wikipedia style guide should say anything of the sort. No other style guide page that I've found advises against the passive (the Manual of Style merely (and in my opinion rightly) advises against its use in one particular circumstance), which strongly suggests that there is no consensus to the effect that the active is generally preferable. The passive is criticised in general terms only here, and it shouldn't be. If a 'weasal' remark which happens to use the passive is a bad thing, it is so because it is a 'weasal' remark, not because it uses the passive, and in the absence of consensus it is quite wrong for this page to do anything other than remain silent upon the general merits of the passive. Ou tis 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we agree that a) some weasel terms force a clause into a passive voice and b) if the passive voice is undesirable, this is yet another strike against those weasel words, and c) if b is true, it is worth mentioning on this page?
If we agree on those things, I think the question comes down to whether use of the passive voice is actually undesirable. I think that we could structure this guideline in a way that allows readers to make that decision for themselves, such as:
Many weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice, e.g. "It is widely believed that ...". If you consider the passive voice undesirable in written English, then you may find this to be another problem with those weasel word phrases.
The Wikipedia MoS defers to style manuals when all else fails. Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is one of the canonical style guides for English composition; you can read a copy on Wikisource: wikisource:en:The_Elements_of_Style/Principles. Their section on voice is titled "Use the active voice;" I'm having a hard time linking to it directly, so you'll just have to scroll down.
My copy of the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.) section 5.112 says:
As a matter of style, passive voice is typically, though not always, inferior to active voice.
I'm not particularly familiar with Fowler's Modern English Usage, but at least this section of the King's English seems to be rigorously opposed to it for its wordiness.
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English is not as firm on the point, and even uses Some argue that... to soften their recommendation against the passive. However, this quote seems clear:
If you want your words to seem impersonal, indirect, and noncommittal, passive is the choice, but otherwise, active voice is almost invariably likely to prove more effective.
The American Heritage Book of English Usage puts up a rigorous defence of the passive voice where appropriate, but then goes on to suggest against the overuse of the passive. To quote:
Perhaps because of the use of the passive voice in technical writing, a sequence of passive verb forms can have the air of authority, but what it often has is air.
In any event, I'd like to move forward by adding the conditional point ("If' you consider the passive voice undesirable in written English, ..."), and we can perhaps pursue whether Wikipedia need form a consensus on matters of composition on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Does that seem a fair compromise? --ESP 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so would I, however certain things still need to be said about the use of the passive voice in weaseling. To say that the passive can never be used to add falseness is just plainly ridiculous. It can be used like every other grammatical device (or rhetorical device) in the course of weaseling.
The passive lends itself to generalization, instead of telling who actually is responsible for something, it is deliberately made unclear who is.
A statement, for example, which leaves out where or how a story started is a weasel whether it is in the passive voice or active voice.
'It has been mentioned he has embezzled money' (Who mentioned it?) It could be said in the active voice too, such as 'People say he has embezzled money'. If not true such a statement in whichever form could be libellous if not criminal. But since nobody says who started it, nobody can be held accountable for it. It could be totally untrue. Let's face it, falseness could be added to a statement, whether in the passive or the active voice and the rumour lands in the public domain. We are not talking about the grammar or linguistics here of what is being said, we are talking about what is being left out, renderiung a statement in such a way that it cannot be substantiated, a listener's inability to know the background to a statement which has been deliberately withheld. Dieter Simon 01:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the passive voice should be specifically mentioned, because the very reason it exists is to omit the subject. The subject is, typically, what would be a proper reference for the fact, if there were one. This is what makes it eminently suitable for weaseling, as opposed to other constructions. Deco 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This should absolutely be removed. I tried to rewrite it, but in even the mildest formulation the objections which can be made to the passive can also be made of sentences written in the active voice. There is nothing wrong with passive constructions in English. Yes, some passive constructions can be used in a weasel-word manner to disingenuously obscure an agent ("It has been said that he was a drug user."; "Mistakes were made, which led to a disaster."), but so can active ones ("Many people say he was a drug user."; "Some of those involved made mistakes, leading to a disaster"). The cure is to make sure to include a reference to the authority behind any such statement ("It has been said (BY WHOM?)..."; "Mistakes were made (BY WHOM?)..."). I also cannot believe this section is bolstered with a reference to Strunk and White's Manual, which book even a proponent notes was "intended as a compendium of helpful advice to novice writers in freshman composition classes, not a code of general laws of writing for all works by all writers in all circumstances" (John Woldemar Cowan, http://ccil.org/~cowan/style-revised.html#cowan), and one detractor describes as "poisonous little collection of bad grammatical advice", explaining: "Elements of Style offers prejudiced pronouncements on a rather small number of topics, frequently unsupported, and unsupportable, by evidence. It simply isn't true that the constructions they instruct you not to use are not used by good writers." (Geoffrey K. Pullum,

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000994.html and http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001803.html) Orbis 3 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Poor Choice of Term

The original and proper sense of “weasel word” (introduced by Theodore Roosevelt) was a term used to suck the significance from the terms around it (much as a weasel might suck the contents of an egg from its shell). As such, a weasel word might well be used to introduce bias, but exactly and only by such sucking; nor would the purpose of a weasel word necessarily be to introduce bias. It would be nice if Wikipedia didn't so often corrupt things. —12.72.72.17

Yes, I agree myself: this particular use of the phrase "weasel words" has very little to do with the existing sense of the phrase. It's in fact a new coinage, and might actually be considered "original work" (I tend to think of this as "pulling an esr", myself). -- Doom 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Rough quantification

There is a situation I often encountered that skirts the boundary of "weasel words"; but I'm not really sure how best to avoid the concern. Often in scientific or technical areas, a particular opinion is held widely enough to be notable, but not uniformly enough to simply be presented as a consensus fact. While the actual approximate breakdown of opinion is not itself a subject of dispute, neither is precise quanitification possible.

Generally in describing such a situation, I can find little better to do than to write stuff like:

  • "Many mathematicians argue ...."
  • "A substantial minority of biologists believe that ..."
  • "A majority of academic sociologists find ..."

Now in all those types of cases, it is relatively easy to find an individual citation of a figure in the relevant field who holds/argues/believes/etc whatever the claim is. But stating in unadorned form, e.g., "A study by Jones and Chiu found..." fails to give the correct nuance here. If it was just that one study, it is probably not notable or important enough to present. What makes it notable is that Jones and Chiu belong to "a substantial minority". However, we are definitely not in a position to state some false precision like "17% of biologists believe..."; the opinions just don't come so nicely carved out. Moreover, it is extremely difficult even to find anyone providing a good citation of the rough breakdown, the scientists each themselves state their opinions on the question, but hardly anyone "goes meta" enough to "give good quote" on the breakdown of belief. Nonetheless, I know enough about several areas to know in a practical way what these rough breakdowns are.

How do other editors handle this sort of approximate quanitification of expertise? LotLE×talk 00:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"A study by Jones and Chie found...[ref1], which contradicts, they argue,[ref1] the classic view of the issue. Their results were accepted by x,[ref2] and y,[ref3], amongst others, and formed the basis of a related study by z.[ref4]." Jkelly 01:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
That certainly seems ideal a lot of the time. But it sort of favors new disputes with relatively few experts, I think. For longstanding divisions within a field (e.g. between "schools of thought") it seems less likely to be possible to produce something quite as neat. Moreover, my feeling is that Jkelly's template automatically treats the matter with a fairly focused attention—if the point is more passing (though still notable), it might somewhat belabor the issue. I'm not disagreeing or diss'ing the suggestion, I'm just trying to figure out how to make sense of it for some examples I've dealt with concretely.
Still, I decide to look at a couple concrete examples. This one is quite impressive in its precision:
P=NP: In a 2002 poll of 100 researchers, 61 believed the answer is no, 9 believed the answer is yes, 22 were unsure, and 8 believed the question may be independent of the currently accepted axioms, and so impossible to prove or disprove.[1]
My hunch is most propositions won't have such rather precise surveys. Here's one that starts with a general "most", but then sort of digresses into what feels like a false precision:
Riemann hypothesis: Most mathematicians believe the Riemann hypothesis to be true. (J. E. Littlewood and Atle Selberg have been reported as skeptical. Selberg's skepticism, if any, waned, from his young days. In a 1989 paper, he suggested that an analogue should hold for a much wider class of functions, the Selberg class.)
Both of those are from the leads of articles that are notable enough to get their own articles though. I'm a bit more interested in claims that are really just minor supports in an article on a related topic. LotLE×talk 01:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, let me give specific and actual problems from an article I'm actually working on:

Capitalism (re. influence of Smith, Ricardo): Today, most academic research on capitalism in the English-speaking world draws on neoclassical economic thought.
Capitalism (re. Marx's Labor Theory of Value): This theory is contested by most mainstream economists today, and even by many contemporary neo-Marxists (Scott 2005).

The second gives a citation, and that cite is to a reference work, but it still feels slightly fuzzy. The first one doesn't have any specific support (though there are several general references listed at the bottom of the article which generally lean in that direction). I'm not really sure how I might apply a Jkelly-style pattern to those sentences, especially without disrupting the flow quote a bit, since neither point really merits more words than it is given. On the other hand, I feel like both "most"s are slightly weasly. LotLE×talk 02:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Academic writing styles

I have found it acceptable in academic writing to state "Some have argued..." followed by a citation or two, or more. I do not see how that is weasiling bias in to anything. What is the specific advantage of taking the author names and putting them all in the start of the sentence, if someone wants verification they can go to the citation. That satisfies the Verifiability criteria, and I don't see how it specifically goes against NPOV, it is stating one point of view objectively IMO. Ansell 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point. Vague attribution and passive voice are often used when the name of the source is available via reference but not of particular importance to the article. I do not particularly care to read an encyclopedia article constantly peppered with "Ira J. Rozenblatz argued in his paper 'Dialectic analysis of the tapeworm' that tapeworms like melons." I just need to know what he said, followed by a link to a source, and trust that the editorial process will weed out content that violates verifiability or undue weight rules. The Crow 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
But in an encyclopedic context, it makes more sense to say what was said (followed by proper attribution, etc) rather than to say "some people say" this. In other words, you shouldn't choose "it has been argued that tapeworms like melons." over "Tapeworms like melons." If you can't defend the latter, then the former should not be used. --63.173.196.33 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (Random832 not logged in)
That's OK as long as there seems to be general agreement among sources that tapeworms like melons. However, if there are a number of different sources that are not in agreement, then you cannot state it as an affirmative fact. And if there are widespread notable opinions on the matter, neither can you simply omit it. An encyclopedia should characterize a debate, not re-enact it. When sources do not agree, then vague textual attribution helps you avoid re-enacting the debate. Citations should be included to reflect both opinions, which readers can choose to read and decide for themselves. The Crow 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Someone has substituted George Bush with 'John Smith' (July 6 edit). I think the original variant illustrates the question better, and in no way violates NPOV or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.206.201 (talk) 10:58, July 12, 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It’s clearly only that one editor’s opinion that GW Bush is functional. --Cplot 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Neopets

Neopets does not have weasel words. All of those facts are true. I should know.General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what a weasel word is. 71.234.32.84 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC) leave message at my user:Ouijalover page. Thank u

See the article weasel word. Dieter Simon 00:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
And WP:V, and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT while your at it! Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Best City

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

Is "Four out of five doctors agree..." a weasel word?

The article tells me (see the last line in examples section) that "Four out of five doctors agree..." is a weasel word. But is this true ? It answers the following questions:

  • Who says that? You? (Four out of five doctors)
  • How many people think that? (four out of five)
  • What kind of people think that? (doctors)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Garo (talk • contribs) 12:08, August 15, 2006 (UTC)

In my mind for it to qualify as a justifiable statement it would need to have multiple surveys stating the same consensus view. I do not see it violating any policy if it cites these surveys at the end of the sentence. The verifiability by a reader of the statement is the only piece missing from your analysis IMO. Ansell 12:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It can only be substantiated if a survey or certain surveys establish that out of so many doctors four fifths have indeed agreed that something is the way it is. Otherwise it must necessarily be a weasel, mustn't it. I agree with Ansell. Dieter Simon 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but "so many" can be five and be literally true. —Random8322007-01-24T00:42:12UTC(01/23 19:42EST)

"Those..."

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

Unbalanced

I don't really have much experience editing on Wikipedia, so please forgive my process ignorance, but whilst reading this article I was struck about how unbalanced it seemed. A lot of general "don't"'s are given, along with some weaselly examples; however whilst the "don't"'s are valid criticisms in the given contexts, there are many that they would not be -- which means this article itself has a kind of bias, because it is almost all negative in situations of shades of gray and uses a kind of "proof by example" technique. There is a small "exceptions" part, but it's right at the end. Reading the article is just like hearing someone rant on, and then when concentration has flagged, just a single sentence and some pointed examples are given to counter 2 1/2 pages worth of negative viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.176.189 (talk) 01:03, August 22, 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget this is not in the main name space, it isn't in the article Weasel word. This is in the Wikipedia space. Dieter Simon 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It is in fact a Wikipedia project, which isn't normally in the public domain unless readers know about it. Dieter Simon 22:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that the same could be said for a lot of lists of "dont's" in writing style. The reason all the "dont's" are focused on is to show examples of bad writing. They aren't meant to be considered negative; that's probably the wrong word to use. This style guide also lists counter examples which is what makes it a good resource for properly forming arguments and stating facts.--Metron4 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What's with the massive list of words/phrases? I see a lot of those in (respected) scientific literature. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.223.32 (talk) 10:48, September 26, 2006 (UTC)

New stuff

Now this is it. You can't have a freaking opinion here and now, you can't even mention that people that have some opinion.This is the worse hypocrisis I have even seen. Wikipedia is written by people, and a certain bias is unavoidable. We are not freaking robots. The neutrality nazis have landed. Screw you guys, the Wikipedia will die because of people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.190.235 (talk) 23:12, August 27, 2006 (UTC)

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

Exclamation marks

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

Allegations the same as Allegedly?

Allegedly is listed as a weasel word.

A wikiuser is arguing that Allegations, the noun of the word, is not a weasel word.

Is this true? Travb (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the noun "allegation" is normally a fact. If someone makes an "allegation", it is a fact that he/she makes it.
The adverb "allegedly", however, is a different kettle of fish, it is part and parcel of the vocabulary of weaselers. They may think they might not have to cite sources by including the magic word "allegedly" as in "allegedly, such and such a thing has happened". Whether they get away with is up to us, the listeners. Dieter Simon 23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go with... "Allegations" is a weasel word. While it's fact that someone makes an allegation, the choice of the word "allegation" to name what they make, instead of a synonym like "accusation" or "charge" or "statement that", I think is the choice of a weasel word. To call something an "allegation" instead of an "accusation" includes a much greater implication of falsehood. According to allegations, The Literate Engineer has made over 1,200 edits to the English language Wikipedia. Allegedly, The Literate Engineer has made over 1,200 edits to the English language Wikipedia. The Literate Engineer alleged that he has made over 1,200 edits to the English language Wikipedia. In all three sentences, the allegation/allegedly/allege does two things: 1, suggest that it isn't true I've made over 1,200 edits to the English language Wikipedia and 2, suggest that whoever says I've made over 1,200 edits to the English language Wikipedia is untrustworthy, a liar. I think that's pretty much the standard function of those words in all sentences: cast doubt on the veracity of a statement and the person making it, without specifying a legitimate reason why they should be doubted. The Literate Engineer 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Woah, aren't you going a bit over the top here? "Allegation" is really only a synonym of "accusation", a shade more diplomatic than "accusation" granted, but basically it means the same. If someone makes an "accusation" or an "allegation", he really does one and the same thing. He/she had jolly well better produce some substantiation if he makes either of the two or he'd be in trouble. That either are being made are facts, it's the substance which matters.
Do you really think if someone alleges I've done something I'd feel better about it than if he/she accuses of something? I don't think so. Dieter Simon 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm going over the top at all. Yes, the person making the _tion does the same thing either way - but to call it an allegation is to say it's an accusation without proof and they're making it up. It's not an issue of whether or not the person accused or alleged to have done something feels any different, it's a matter of whether the person making the allegation/accusation is credible or not. Look at it this way: the dictionaries I've checked define allege as "to accuse without proof". The act of saying someone did something, if you call it an allegation, you're automatically saying that the person who performs that act isn't to be believed. That is what I believe. The Literate Engineer 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends who uses the word "allegation", surely. Yes, I agree, allegation means accusation without proof, but if a third person states an allegation has been made that someone had done something wrong, surely he is stating a fact, he is not alleging that an allegation has been made. The third person could even say that Charlie Farnesbarnes has made an allegation that someone has done something. The third person is merely stating a fact. It doesn't matter what the allegation consists of, the stating that an allegation has been made is the fact. You certainly can't blame the third person for stating that fact. It is not the subject or the substance of the allegation that is at issue here but that a fact has taken place, namely the allegation. So the word itself is neutral here, it is the substance of the allegation which is the weasel hiding a possible untruth. If an allegation has been made, by all means report that it has been made. No weasel here.
Perhaps I didn't make myself terribly clear when I said I wouldn't feel any better if someone alleged rather than accused me of having done something wrong. However, I certainly would'nt feel any animosity against a friend if he told me an allegation had been made that I had done something wrong. I would feel animosity against the person who has made the allegation in the same way if he had made an accusation against me. Dieter Simon 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've made it clear what my point is. Person 1 says that Person 2 does something. Person 3 then reports to Person 4 that "Person 1 said this about Person 2." Now, if Person 3 says that in the form of "Person 1 made an accusation about Person 2", they are reporting the fact that Person 1 said something; if Person 3 says "Person 1 made an allegation about Person 2", they are reporting the fact that Person 1 said something but also implying that Person 1 is not telling the truth. It's two different words, one of which pushes a POV, for the same action. As I understand you, you're arguing that there's a meaningful difference between the act of making an allegation and the act of making an accusation; I believe that it's an identical action going by two names, one of which is value-neutral and one of which is value-laden. And you can blame Person 3 for how they choose to label Person 1's action.The Literate Engineer 02:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that at all. Why should person 3 to person 4 actually know that person 2 might have told an untruth. If he hasn't actually said to peron 1 "I accuse you of..." the best way for person 3 to 4 would be to call it an allegation, what ever the truth might turn our to be later. You see, it is in fact a kind safeguard not to be accused of spreading an untruth. Much easier to call it an allegation if they have only heard person 2 talk about it. An allegation isn't necessarily a claim that an untruth has been told, it could be just that it might have been or it might not have been. But the original statement is still only a fact. Dieter Simon 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that makes no sense whatsoever. The Literate Engineer 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
None of this makes sense. Allegedly is an adverb describing the action of a verb as unverified and is definitely a weasel word when not used specifically in the sense of a current legal investigation. An allegation is a noun defined as an unproven statement along the same lines, and is also a weasel word when not used in the sense of a current legal investigation. The word charged should be used once the legal investigation is underway. Allegations are unproven, they are alleged to have happened, and the subject allegedly acted in a specific manner. All unproven, and should be considered all weasel all the time. CMacMillan 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, "allegation" is, as I first agreed, referring to an untruth, something that is unproven, may not be supported by facts. However, so is the word "accusation", first cited in the original exchange. Surely, an accusation at a first stage is equally unproven, as nobody knows that an accusation is actually true unless he/she was actually there to witness the act a person is being accused of. My "Collins E. D." in fact states that an accusation is an "allegation that a person is guilty of some fault, offence, or crime", so please don't say that it is any more positive of less weasely than an allegation. What was it The Engineer said? "To call something an "allegation" instead of an "accusation" includes a much greater implication of falsehood"?
As I said, at a certain stage nobody knows what the truth is, but they can state the fact that someone has made an allegation or an accusation against someone else, that is and remains a fact. Where is the weaseling? It's true, someone has alleged something about someone, or accused him/her of something. That's a fact, he's heard someone say sonething about another person, so he reports it. What's the problem with it, it's a fact. Whatever words he uses it has got to be unsubstantiated at that stage, but a fact that someone has said something is a fact. Dieter Simon 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between an 'untruth' in the philosophical sense (ie that it isn't proven) and an untruth meaning a lie or false statement. Allegation is an extremely useful word as it lets the reader know that what's coming isn't by any means proven fact, as long as it is accompanied by a source (- the origin of the allegation) it is surely fine. However if it is not then it is worse than useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.21.177 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Verging on OR

If people keep suggesting additions based on what just seems right to them, this rule will run the risk of being OR. New additions should have credible outside sources that already call them weasel words. Doczilla 04:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are reached through consensus via ongoing discussions. I believe you are confusing article space (the articles on wikipedia) with wikipedia namespace/talkspace (where policies/guidelines exist and are formulated). The talk, as well as the policies/guidelines, would necessarily be original research... no one can publish articles about guidelines we haven't yet formulated. Please also keep in mind that consensus can change. /Blaxthos 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words - emotive or equivocal

I question the basic definition of "weasel words" used in Avoid weasel words.

The examples illustrate emotive language, i.e. language designed to sway the reader's emotions without presenting facts or reasoning.

But every other use of the phrase "weasel words" that I've met has referred to deliberately ambiguous language which allows the speaker to "weasel out of" a position or commitment when confronted with unwelcome facts or reasoning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (my mid-1960s copy) defines "weasel-word" (US) as "a word which destroys the force of a statement, as a weasel destroys an egg by sucking out its contents". Philcha 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The article has "weasel words" and "smoky words" all mixed up. Smoky words can be used to weasel out of acknowledging something, but despite this overlap, there is a general difference. Doczilla 21:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a sufficient resolution to dealing with Weasel Words?

I have been operating under the impression that Weasel Words should be removed, or replaced with specific inline citations, i.e.

"His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." ==> "Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"

In a dispute I've been having (on the talk page here) I believe *some* of the disagreement has been because some of the editors believe that simply adding a reference is sufficient (a seperate disagreement is listed below). So, is it sufficient to "fix" Weasel Words by just adding a reference to the critic, i.e.

"His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate." ==> ""His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate.[1]" Cbuhl79 19:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What Constitutes "too numerous to quantify"

In the same dispute I mentioned above (on the talk page here), one of the major issues is over what constitutes "too numerous to quantify". Specifically, editors have stated that they believe "critics of <this organization>" are "too numerous to quantify". So, can anyone here elaborate on what they think falls under "too numerous to quantify". Cbuhl79 19:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just imagine you are writing an article about a political party, about which certain facts are known to the population, because not only innumerable articles have appeared in newspapers and journals, but also books have been published where these facts have appeared. It would render an article of limited length quite unreadable if you were to cite every one of those sources. There must come a cut-off point beyond which it would be impracticable to go in your practice of citing sources. Is that perhaps the point when not only critics but any commentators become "too numerous to quantify"? Dieter Simon 23:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the general argument that some other editors are trying to make, that there are too many specific critics to cite. I have a few problems with this. First of all I don't think that the argument "there are too many critics who could be cited" is valid, since there is NO requirement that EVERY available reference be cited, so that should only make it easy to pick a few of the most useful citations.
Second I believe that not characterizing critics is a problem. To use your example of political parties - imagine if an article on the Republican Party included a statement like "Republicans are often criticized for not caring about the poor." The fact is, this may be a completely true statement, and it does contain useful information, but the information about the identity of the critics is probably just as useful, and definitely necessary to maintian NPOV, so something like "Republicans are often criticized by Democrats for not caring about the poor." would be better. However, one of the main objections to the inclusion of specific critics in the case above was that it would "that it is an idea that only resides with the far left". I believe that it is POV to try to obscure the positions of the critics. Cbuhl79 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, who among the Democrats would you pick? (Don't give any names, it's only a test-case). Would you then go ahead and give all the names of those critics, or just a few, which ones would you select, the most prominent ones, the most eloquent ones? You would probably have to realise that other editors would follow suit and give the rest of them as well willy-nilly. Would that be in our eyes quite unwieldy, or not? would we then have to apply some kind of Occam's razor and severely simplify the whole of citation procedure and citation numbers? Dieter Simon 21:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait, so are you suggesting that if there is a fair characterization of criticism ("Democrats tend to criticize Republicans for lack of compassion"), that you shouldn't characterize it as such because there are too many sources? So you would just leave it as "Republicans tend to be criticized for lack of compassion". My objection is that it is POV to not characterize criticisim over a POV issue. Cbuhl79 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I just took the time to carefully re-read WP:NPOV, and I would like to point out the following
IMO, the purpose of the WP:WEASEL guideline is to help enforce the WP:NPOV policy. Cbuhl79 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding to Exceptions

I'm very tempted to "be bold" and simply add to the Exceptions myself, but I thought it'd be more proper to talk about it here first. I think we need to add the exception When accurately reflecting the current state of scholarship. This could be re-worded a number of different ways, such as When discussing a subject on which there is no scholarly consensus.

For example, "Most scholars believe that the people who were to become the Japanese originally came from Korea, and began settling the archipelago in the fourth century." Or "Today, many scholars are moving away from the use of the term 'feudalism' to apply to the distinctly non-Western case of China in the such-and-such period."

Not everything has a "minority opinion", and for many topics the majority opinion is not necessarily true. "Many believe that the use of atomic weapons on Japan was the right decision, and that doing so saved millions of Japanese and American lives." Or "Many believe that the use of atomic weapons on Japan was a terrible act, citing the degree of the destruction and extent of the suffering inflicted. Some even accuse the Americans of war crimes or outright atrocities on account of these two events." Which of those is the minority opinion? Which one is fact? Should either be written without the "Many believe that..."?

Things can be controversial on the public level, things can also be hotly debated within an esoteric corner of scholarship. And even when things are not hotly debated, they can be undecided or theoretical. Where appropriate, I think weasel words are absolutely essential to representing a topic accurately and fairly. "Many scholars" would agree with me. (j/k) LordAmeth 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:NPOV:
I don't disagree agree that in scholarly cases such as you mentioned it's sufficient to simply state the majority position as you said with a reference.
When discussion moral opinions, as opposed to scholarly facts, then IMO WP:NPOV suggests that you should stick to facts about the opinions - to either substantiate the majority (or minority) with a reference - i.e. "82% of Americans believe it was right to drop the bomb", or to attribute the opinions to someone - i.e. "Harry Truman believed that it was right to drop the bomb" Cbuhl79 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, except that in your first example, it's not always possible to find such numbers, and they're pretty meaningless when you do find them. "According to one study, which found different results than another study, and which was done ten years ago and is thus totally outdated anyway, 82% of Americans believe in..." The second statement, or its ilk, makes me think that only Truman believed this. Let me give you another example. "Ikuro Teshima, the head of the Makuya sect, writes that the Japanese people are descended from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel." OR "There are many who believe that the Japanese people are descended from one of the Lost Tribes." It may be a minority opinion, but it's true, and more forceful, to say that "many" believe. Teshima's not just a lone crazy. "Edwin Reischauer believed that the US should spare Kyoto on account of its historical and cultural value to the world." vs "Many scholars, including Edwin O. Reischauer, believed..." 'Many scholars' may be a weasel word, but it's more impressive than individual citations. This is especially true when you get to more obscure writers. If you cite just one scholar, the reader will say "who the hell is this guy, and why should I believe what he thinks?" If you cite "Many scholars" or even just "Many people", it implies a consensus among a group, and not just a single outrunner. LordAmeth 07:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are many cases when you CAN find a reasonable study that shows a majority view, or when the majority view is so widely held as to not require a study at all ("The earth is round").
If you CANT find a reasonable study, or if the view is genuinely widely held, but is also part of reasonable scholarly debate and you are concerned that to cite a single scholar isn't "impressive enough", then I don't think there is any problem with saying something like "Many scholars, such as Ikuro Teshima, believe that...". But in this case, you should make sure that you were able to find MANY prominent scholars who you *could* have cited (and possibly provide those references somewhere), or a survey that indicates that many scholars agreed.
If you think that "many" scholars agree, then you should be able to back up that with citations. From WP:NOR
Cbuhl79 14:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Does citing one writer in some way prove that "many" scholars agree? I always cite my work, of course. But just because the sources I have in front of me do not explicitly say "Many other scholars agree with me..." does not mean that it's not true. As a MA student, I am quickly gaining a deep understanding of the state of scholarship within my field; that doesn't mean I remember exactly which scholars said what, or where they said it. Doesn't make it any less true. Should I just make up citations? Would that be a good thing? Should I make broad, widely accepted statements, like "the Genroku period is widely regarded as the peak of extravagance and hedonism in Edo" and then cite whoever the hell I feel like? This is not the opinion of Marius Jansen, nor is it the result of original research by Mary Berry. It's just a fact of the field, that many many scholars talk about, often without even citing a source. "The battle of Hastings is widely considered one of the most influential battles in English history." - Do I have to source that? How many citations is enough to "prove" that something is "widely regarded" or "agreed upon by many scholars"? LordAmeth 18:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:NOR:

And again from WP:NPOV:

WP:NPOV highlights the following example from Shakespeare as way to properly reference what is arguably a "weasel" word (emphasis added):

If you can find a reference in a commonly accepted reference text like the one above (the reference cited specifically says "considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time."), then it is not "original research" to state that it is a majority viewpoint. Otherwise, you should cite prominent holders of the opinion. Is your frustration that - being deeply immersed in the field - you are confident that something is a majority opinion, and you simply want to state it as such? Cbuhl79 18:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Putting aside entirely the issue of citations, I want to be able to write things accurately, using the full arsenal of the English language. I don't want to be told that so-called weasel words are banned, or that so-called peacock terms are banned. Period. As a guideline, I fully support the notion of telling people to write in a responsible, accurate, and grammatical way. Giving people suggestions or guidelines is great - it helps us become better writers, and it makes our encyclopeda better quality overall. But rules and restrictions cannot address every situation, and should not be laid as a blanket without looking at individual cases. If I'm writing "Many people think that watermelon is gross," weaseling my way out of admitting that I'm simply inserting my own opinion, then by all means remove it. It's poor writing, and irresponsible, and we shouldn't need a spelled-out rule to tell us that. But if I write "Many Westerners find the smell of durian to be intolerable" or "Many Westerners are squeamish about the idea of eating raw fish" or "Many people strongly dislike natto, but most Japanese love it," are those "weasel" statements? Are they worthy of being removed? They're fully accurate, and useful and important to discussing the topic at hand. They're also not the sort of thing I am likely to be able to cite easily. LordAmeth 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If you really think it that important to put a citation every single time that I write "Most scholars believe..." or the like, I will do my best. But the crucial thing I am arguing here is that we be allowed to use the phrase. If it is accurate to say "Many people believe..." or "Some scholars believe..." (without necessarily naming them), then we should be able to say it. Period. LordAmeth 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


In the end, I do not think that editors should have to be on the defensive. Wikipedia is a hobby for me, as it is for nearly every editor I would imagine, and I simply do not have the time, the resources, or the inclination to cite every single thing that might potentially be questionable. WP:NOR and WP:NPOV seem to assume that every editor has access to whatever resources might be necessary to defend oneself through citations. I happen to know certain elements of my field pretty well - that doesn't mean that I know who said them, in what book, or on what page - and again I don't have the time or the inclination to hunt for it. Editors should not have to be on the defensive; which is more important, that an article is factually accurate, or that it cites heavily? Again, this is a hobby for most of us, if not all of us, and I do not want Wikipedia to feel like work. Hunting for citations takes time and effort, and it feels like work. ¶ More specifically, as it pertains to weasel words, I think the burden should be on the accuser to argue, or prove, that something is a weasel word, rather than the burden being on the editor to defend themselves prior to being accused. Do you see what I'm saying? For example: "Many in the fashion industry believe Harajuku to be one of the best places to seek out new youth street fashions." This is a factual statement, and one useful to the discussion of Harajuku street fashion. I do not believe that the author of that statement should have to cite it or prove its truth until it is challenged. We cannot cite every single thing that could ever potentially be questioned; that's a slippery slope, and I do not want to have to go there. Let's take another example - the featured article today or yesterday was the number "0.99... repeating". I know that's equal to 1, and I think most of here do, and understand why, without it being cited. Without it being proved out in front of us. Citations don't make something true, and lack of citations do not make something false. If you want to challenge any particular point of what I've written, please go ahead. I'll be as ready as I can be to defend myself - but I will not take the paranoid's route of defending every single statement before it's even been challenged. If "most scholars believe" or if "some scholars believe", and I just don't remember their name at the moment, or their book, or the page, it doesn't make it any less true that they believe it. LordAmeth 21:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with what you're saying. You should cite references as often and as well as you are able, but unless you're editing a particularly controversial article (like abortion), don't be afraid to be bold in making edits that you feel improve the article, and not worry about defending EVERYTHING in advance of being challenged, as long as you're willing to discuss edits with other editors, and work to find the references necessary if other editors question unsourced materials. Cbuhl79 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

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

Certain adjectives

One of my friends attacked my Probe Ministries stub for using "dogmatic" and "sensationalistic". Are these weasel words? they don't seem to fit the description in the article. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the article. It looks like you've put a lot of effort into it, it looks like a good start to an article. I think that the article would be much improved by finding references and sources for a lot of the claims you make (for example, you claim that "They have argued against strong evidence that Christianity borrowed from Pagan faiths", if this is true will probably be able to find a reference on their website that explicitly states that, so you should source it). One of the principal policies is no original research, which means that you should be able to "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."
One of the other principal policies of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. The article as it is currently written seems to me to be written from a very negative point of view. I would strongly encourage you to read the entire WP:NPOV policy carefully, and see if you can improve your article on Probe Ministries to be written from a neutral point of view. Cbuhl79 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to fix this guideline?

I have to say that I hate this guideline. Or, at least I hate how people apply this guideline. I have found editors to use this guideline as an excuse to revert changes that are intended to remove POV. I have found editors to use this guideline as an excuse to revert changes that are intended to fix unreferenced statements. There are editors who act as though it is now wrong to ever use the word "some" even though, in some instances, "some" is the exact, referenced, encyclopedic thing to say. The guideline is a bit vague as to what exactly should be avoided, and I think that leads to all sorts of confusion and problems that make it more difficult for Wikipedia to actually fulfill its objectives.

Can it be made very, very clear at the beginning of the guideline that just the use of certain words or phrases is not enough to qualify as being weasel words? Honestly, why does this guideline even exist? If there is some statement like "some experts say", isn't it enough to just ask for a solid reference for that statement? If such a reference actually exist, what is wrong with having that statement in Wikipedia? If the reference doesn't exist, then the statement should be gone anyhow. How close was the vote on putting this guideline into place anyhow? Did not many editors foresee the problems that might come about with it?

Cheers, HalfDome 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur with this note. I would like to see if anyone has any solutions to this. Nonprof. Frinkus 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Negationism … the other side of the POV extreme

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

Request for comment

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

Requested move to "vague phrasing"

Hi. I am proposing that this guide be renamed to Wikipedia:Avoid vague phrasing. First, I think that calling someone's contributions to this encyclopedia "weasel words" is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. According to our Wikipedia article on the topic, "A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue." Yet the example that begins this guide ("Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world.") doesn't fit that definition. Some people do say Montreal is the nicest city in the world. It is a true statement and it does not soften the force of the statement nor avoid a clear position. The problem is that the statement is vague, and vague phrasing is uninformative (as is nicely described at the beginning of this guide). So avoid vague phrasing. — Reinyday, 20:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, there is a perfectly good article already in existence Weasel word. Weasel word, weasel term, or weaseling is the normal term for this kind of usage. I don't know where that leaves your suggestion. Unless you are going to rewrite the dictionaries, "vague phrasing" is the definition of the expression, not the expression itself. Dieter Simon 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I know there is an article at Weasel word; I quoted it. My point is that it is rude and POV to call someone's edit weaseling. "Vague phrasing" is not the definition of the expression, as you can see from the quote I provided above. — Reinyday, 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea to me. Cheers, HalfDome 09:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Myself I would love to see the perjorative "weasel word" dropped entirely. But I'm afraid that "vague phrasing" isn't a very good name... it is, uh, too vague. My idea was to change the title to something like "Be Cautious With Vague Attribution". It seems to me that the word "avoid" is too strong: it's a very useful idiom -- avoiding it in all (or even in most) cases would be extremely awkward. -- Doom 21:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey, if someone is trying to tell you that his goods "are cheaper now than ever" without telling you "cheaper than what"; that "there is more goodness in..." withouth telling how the goodness is measured; if someone is trying to tell you that "more people than ever are using his goods" without telling you what that means in numbers - just to use a few examples - he is trying to weasel you into something and you have every right to call a spade a spade and call what he is doing 'weaseling'. He really doesn't care about you, all he trying to do is flog you his goods without substantiating how true it is what he is saying. He really needs to tell you, you know, so why be so tender-hearted towards him. We in Wiki are not the ones who have invented the expression "weaselword" or "weaselterm", it's been in existence a long time, so it has a right to be in either dictionary or encyclopaedia, and we should describe what it is all about without beating about the bush, so why invent a new expression when the old one is good enough? Go ahead, call it 'weaseling', 'weaselword' or 'weasel expression'. Dieter Simon 02:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So, a big No to moving it or redirecting it to "vague phrasing", sorry people. Dieter Simon 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you under the impression it's your decision? Anyway: I challenge you to provide a reference that supports this claim. Find an existing dictionary with this definition of "weasel words" in it. I would claim that the class of weasel words as definied here, is at best a sub-set of the exiting definition. It's in effect a new piece of jargon, invented by ESP to dismiss an idiom that he doesn't like. If you're having trouble seeing this, I would guess it's because you got used to the jargon before you thought about it. -- Doom 21:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Doom, where have you been all your life? Here goes:
  • Longman Dictionary of the English Language, Longman Group UK limited, fifth impression 1988

weasel word n. chiefly N. Am. a word in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position; an equivocation {from the weasel's reputed habit of sucking thne contents out of an egg while leabing the shell superficially intact.

  • The Chambers Dictionary, Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd 1993

weasel word a word that makes a statement evasive or misleading, orig. a word used illegitimately in conjunction with another word rendering it meaningless or sucking its meaning from it as a weasel sucks out the contents of an egg.

  • Collins English Dictionary, William Collins Sons & Co Ltd, latest edition 2004

weasel words, plural noun. Informally intentionally evasive or misleading speech; equivocation.

Hope this convinces you, it is pretty much used. Dieter Simon 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, I should've made the objection clearer: I know what weaseling is, and I know what this article says weaseling is, and those two do not match up exactly. It could be argued that "weasel words" (vague attribution) are a subset of the more general notion (evading a direct statement) -- but I don't think that even that is really true, because in some cases the phrases discussed here as "weasel words" aren't always weaseling. Sometimes they are, but not always, hence the all-too-brief listing of "exceptions" in the article. Do you see what I'm getting at? We got concept A in general use, and concept B invented by ESP, and the term for concept A got pressed into use to describe concept B. -- Doom 07:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about (weaseling that has nothing to do with "vague attribution"): Back on March 18, 2003, Bush sent a letter to Congress justifying the upcoming invasion of Iraq. The last line of it is:
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Now, some people look at this and see Bush lying about an Iraqi 9/11 connection, other people however, insist that he's got himself covered with that word "including" (emphasis mine). That's not a lie, he just wandered off topic a bit and included an irrelevant little remark without any intent to deceive.
I submit that this is a prime example of weaseling out of responsibility for what you're saying. -- Doom 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I do see your point, though, certain types of statements might indeed be just "wandering off topic", rather than outright intentional withholding of substantiation of the full info necessary, and that therefore "weaseling" is too strong a word for that. On the other hand, it is difficult to draw the line here. I can just hear the voices saying "vague attribution" being yet another form "weaseling", this time of the word "weaseling". Let's face it, Doom, we all indulge in it at some time or other. I think life would be unbearable if we came out with it straightforwardly and directly, especially toward our nearest and dearest upsetting them in doing so, when a word that smoothes things might be so much better. I think, what matters is the intention to mislead or not, rather than a mere misjudgement of style or "losing it" momentarily. And the smoothing things over, too, among friends, etc., so that one does not call a spade a spade, is not such a bad idea after all. Dieter Simon 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I do think, though, where it is obvious that a statement has the intention of misleading the listener of reader, or withholding the substantiation or evidence of the background to a statement, that it should be called "weasel word", rather than using a mollifying term. Dieter Simon 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
So you mean, instead of a neutral term, you prefer having a sanctioned way of calling someone names? (How about an {asshole} tag?)
Anyway, it sounds like you're convinced that the concept this article discusses ("weasel words") is a subset of the conventional idea of "weasel words". There are several different ways I might argue from here: (1) Why is this subset named identically to the superset ? When we need to distinguish the two, won't we end up using another phrase, e.g. "vague attribution"? (2) I actually don't believe this subset is a subset -- I think it includes cases that don't belong in the superset, e.g. "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest novel." That isn't weaseling, that's just a fact. (3) Doesn't this article constitute original work? It describes a new usage of the phrase "weasel words", and invents a new principle: it is by no means an accepted rule of thumb in academic writing that one should not use a phrase like "widely regarded as". -- Doom 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's no good getting all bad-tempered with "ass-hole tag, etc,. All I mean is that the term "weasel term" is well established for making a statement for devious reasons, without backing it up without the facts necessary.

There is one subset, however, common 'grammatical generalizations', "when it is impractical, if not impossible, to enumerate and cite too many individual voices, or the voices are too remote in time, then the use of of these grammatical devices really conform to the standards established by tradition". I am quoting this from Weasel word and one sentence will have to suffice to give a flavour of what I mean: "For scientists as for so many others, evolution served as an example of a fundamental challenge to long-held conviction". Just how many pages and pages is one to cite of people who have ever felt it hard to accept having their convictions challenged. It would destroy the unity and coherence of an article, when it is much better to state something as a generalization, and it should be accepted as that. 'Generalization' in this case is well enough established to use as a subset, as you call it. Something like that quoted statement is common enough to be accepted when it is made without making a big thing of it and calling it "weasel word". But wether you call it "generalization" or "weasel word", we all make it at times, quite legitimately so, for the above reasons.

This has nothing to do with neutrality, we are discussing the keyword "weasel word" here, which exists in most dictionaries, and is defined by them. It is not anything we have invented here and have included in Wikipedia, just to slag people off. In fact, it has a right to be in this encyclopaedia under that name because that is the name by which it is known.

By all means, if you want to create a separate article for "vague phrasing", go ahead, but please do not move this article to it or merge it with it. The two things just aren't the same. As I said, there is a separate article for "weasel word", were you going to move that as well? I don't think so.

By the way, I have complemented the header to 'requested move to "vague phrasing", as it should be, to give it the full meaning. Dieter Simon 00:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Imagine a hypothetical case here: you've written an article about something, a guy drives by who may know nothing about the subject, but sees one of the Forbidden Phrases (or shall we say, "strongly discouraged as a rule-of-thumb" phrases -- talk about weaseling). This guy slaps a {weasel} tag on it. How exactly do you feel about that? Does it put you in a reasonable frame of mind? Consider that there's already other tags that could be used instead, e.g. {fact}. Should we even have a "{weasel}" tag?
If the "weasel term" is well-established it's soley because people like me didn't feel like getting into an edit-war with people like ESP -- there have been continual objections to this term, ever since it was introduced. Where's the consensus?
"if you want to create a separate article" -- Now you're sounding like ESP... you want me to go play in my own article and leave your territory alone... but it's not supposed to be your territory. We're not supposed to have territory.
And we're going in circles here: yes "weasel word" is a phrase that existed before this article, but the meaning assigned to it by this article is a new meaning. -- Doom 14:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No, "weasel word", "weasel term" and "weaseling" as dictionary terms have existed as dictionary entries long before Wikipedia came into being. All I am saying is, look at the three examples I cited from the dictionaries I have at home. What are they saying?
  • "a word in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position; an equivocation"
  • "a word that makes a statement evasive or misleading, orig., a word used illegitimately in conjunction with another word rendering it meaningless or sucking its meaning from it as a wasel sucks out the contents of an egg"
  • "informally intentionally evasive or misleading speech; equivocation"
All these include the terms evasive or even misleading; evasive because they are spoken or written without substantiation often as to the person who says whatever, the voice who remains anonymous when it should be cited and the statement in this way becomes evasive; and misleading because they are "sucking" out certain elements of the statements without citing the others which might possibly contradict them. It's perfectly clear as to what is meant. Where is the problem? Whatever other not quite so misleading elements have also been included in "weaseling", has been dealt with in the article "weasel word", and I agree with you they should not be but are, as a matter of fact. That is, what the article is trying to explain.
Guys driving by and putting in their tuppenny-ha'penny-worth of misinformation or including a "weaseling" tag have always existed and will always do so, and are therefore part of the weaseling problem. It is up to all of us to stop them getting away it, removing their claptrap if we can't find any Googling or Yahooing or External source substantiation. That is what we do as Wikipedians, that is where our neutrality comes in which we should be practising. We should not, hoewever, bowdlerise the English language and clean it from "undesirables" however apt. That is what I meant by creating a separate article for "vague phrasing" or "vague attribution". It is useful for highlighting all those elements which have been discussed in "weasel word", such as generalization, passive voice, etc., which we all use at times. It is in Google and in Yahoo, thoug not in dictionaries, so you explain how other people use the "vague" usages.
As and afterthought, I do not agree with creating a "weaseling" tag, template or prompt. Dieter Simon 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
So is "weasel words" a prejorative term, or not? If you admit it's insulting to have a {weasel} tag slapped on your work, how can you avoid the point that it's insulting for someone to say "Don't use weasel words like that!" -- Doom 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You read what suits you, don 't you, Doom, and not the full story? Unfortunately, somehow or other this whole controversy has been split into three separate sections.
  • A proposal: Inline weasel tag
  • Hypocrisy at Wikipedia becoming almost too bleeding obvious
  • Requested move to "vague phrasing"
It is in "A proposal: Inline weasel tag" that wwwolf(barks/growls) wrote:
" I know "weasel" is nice, but shouldn't we have some template along the lines of the ((fact)) template, the inline counterpart of ((unreferenced))? This sort of template would be useful for specifying where exactly this weasel-wording is taking place. Or is there such a template already?"
Whereupon I wrote in "Hypocrisy at Wikipedia..." to another editor (as well as to WWWolf):
"I disagree with the original motion of having "weasel word" moved to "vague attribution", ...as they aren't the same thing for the reasons I have given already. I disagree with having special "weasel" tags, templates, or prompts as they are patronizing and demeaning of the intelligence of readers and editors. We know when we come across a weasel word without having to be told every time..."
Please try to read the full story and not just selective parts, Doom. Although I didn't quite quote the full citation in the section we both love so much "Requested move to "vague phrasing", you must have been aware of the other sections, and read them too? Dieter Simon 02:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy at Wikipedia becoming almost too bleeding obvious

I don't understand how a rational person can think the term "Weasel" is NPOV. If you are going to indict an article for having certain content, you better damn well make sure you define what the hell you don't like about it. Calling it 'too weasely' is just, totally POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 (talk) 14:38, November 13, 2006 (UTC)

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

A proposal: Inline weasel tag

I know {{weasel}} is nice, but shouldn't we also have some template along the lines of {{fact}}, the inline counterpart of {{unreferenced}}? This sort of template would be useful for specifying where exactly this weasel-wording is taking place. Or is there such a template already? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of any "weaseling" tags, templates or prompts whatsoever, as I have explained in the "Hypocrisy at Wikipedia becoming almost too bleeding obvious" section.
Have moved this section near to the other two "weaseling" sections "Requested move to 'Vague phrasing'", and "Hypocrisy at Wikipedia becoming almost too bleeding obvious".
Dieter Simon 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should follow its own wisdom

It seems inappropriate that an article decrying the use of "weasel words" should contain the sentence:

"It is well-established that weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.239.75 (talk) 21:33, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

Quite so, after trying to explain what weasel words/terms are we are getting "don't really give a neutral point of view". Will whoever it was be getting round to it eventually? Dieter Simon 01:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Recursive use

"Although Brahms' work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value". Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact;

Almost, but not quite? Recursive weasel words! It seems to me that it's almost impossible to talk about weasel words without slipping one or two through yourself! Generalizations are made in terms of weasel words, they say.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.18.174 (talk) 16:51, November 16, 2006 (UTC)

Additional word?

I apologize for being my first post/comment. I had made an anonymous addition to the wiktionary word "clearly" (current), which from what I'm reading here appears to qualify as a 'weasel word'. However, it also appears a disagreement occurred and the page was restored to it's original description. If I understand the dispute correctly, the addendum definition was viewed as a rant. Perhaps the extension I added could be cleaned up with another set of eyes. Please review my edit and consider the word "clearly" to be added as a 'weasel word'.

I think this should actually go into discussion under the Wiktionary article "clearly", where you can discuss this with the editor who removed your edit in the article. I think also, the clue is in your being anon, anything that appears anonymously is often considered POV, might be worth to adopt a nick of some sort. As you can see in this Wikipedia article, anything that isn't substantiated, anything that isn't supported by evidence, anything where the speaker or author avoids naming himself as the originator of a statement may well be considered "weaselling". Dieter Simon 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Are some articles better off with or without the passive voice?"

Is this section really established consensus? It seems to clash with the rest of the guideline, and to me it sounds like something someone threw in to justify a poorly-written article. And lo and behold, I think there's pretty clear evidence that this "consensus" is the consensus of a single editor. (Note that these are two consecutive edits by one editor.) If no one objects, I'd like to move this section here for discussion since sticking one's opinions en masse in a guideline article seems like poor form. - Cheers PhilipR 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No one objected. Here's the section I'm disputing. - PhilipR 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed text

Are some articles better off with or without the passive voice?

In the Wikipedia article backronym under the heading "Offensive" every one of the examples given is in the passive voice:

  • "is often referred to..."
  • "is widely referred to..."
  • "often interpreted..."
  • "has been etymologically interpreted..."
  • "is often disguised..."
  • "can be substituted..."
  • "has been known..."
  • "is said to stand for..."
  • "is called sometimes..."
  • "truckers often refer to..." (the only example of an active voice, but still a weasel expression)
  • "has been re-defined as..."

This article is one of the perfect examples where it is almost impossible to cite sources, an article which in an ideal situation should literally abound in citations, but due to the common usage of backronyms on the one hand, and their obscure derivations on the other, they cannot be followed back to their sources. It lays itself open to POV because it is not substantiated by citations, but its pervasive use of the passive voice will have to be accepted as valid.

Idea for addition

Would "It has been proven that..." be a suitable addition? I encountered this in an article and it really rubbed me the wrong way, especially as there was no source for the claim. -/- Warren 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Seen, thanks :-) Yes, that one was really bad. I asked because, for instance, in a math article it might have referred to a mathematical proof; in such a case I guess the sentence in itself is ok, but needs to be backed up (of course). In practice I don't think the list can ever be omni-comprehensive, and we could even trim it a bit: what matters is understanding what words are able to "suck away" (as a weasel does with an egg's content) all the meaning from the sentence that follows; the list just enumerates some examples. My 2cents —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay?: so-and-so's statement "widely reported on the web"

Question/request for comment about hearsay issue. Over on The Wicker Man (1973 film), users argue the following as a notable point. Christopher Lee reported, for years, that when incoming EMI/British Lion exec Michael Deeley saw the completed (99 minute) cut of the film in 1973, he pronounced it "one of the 10 worst films I've seen." Christopher Lee has said this in many interviews, might even say it on one of hte DVD commentaries. He has good reason; he developed the film, worked for free, considered it one of his best roles; the 88 minute version that first came out was horribly butchered, and it was six years before a restored version was released to critical acclaim (both for the film and Lee). He has good reason to be pissed off.

But in recent interviews with Mark Kermode (writer of "Burnt Offering," a Brit documentary about the film), Deeley denied he ever said it. Kermode passes this on in not one but two (web-)published articles. I say, it's hearsay. Maybe he did say it, but only Lee has claimed he did (so far's we know), and Deeley since denies he said it. Others claim it's notable because Lee's claim has been "widely reported" (read: widely repeated) over the years, and can be found routinely on various web pages. Like many stories about this film, it has passed into the stuff of myth (what I call cyberban legends©).

But does WP publish "myth?" Even if it can be referenced in several notable, published sources? Comments welcome. Nay, comments requested. I'm interested in what other, more experiences WP policy/guideline wonks have to say. TIA, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review Fox News Channel

It is in dire need of removing of weasel words, and the contributors there are unwilling to even consider this guideline which will improve Wikipedia standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.186.248 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The above anon continues to hide sources against consensus which was achieved as a result of 2 RfC's. During this discussion, two complaints were lodged with the ArbCom. The current wording of the article in question is a result of well over a month of discussion. Please take this into consideration before making any drastic changes to the article and review the appropriate discussions within the archives. Thanks, AuburnPilottalk 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It took me all of 20 seconds to find cases of weasel wording in the article, and I went ahead and removed some of it. Whatever your concerns may be with the anonymous editor's approach to dealing with sources, their concern that the article has been compromised with weasel words does appear to be valid. -/- Warren 06:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"citation needed"

I generally shoot weasels on sight, but I'm a bit disturbed by the tendency for people to justify them if they're marked with "{{fact}}". It's true that if a citation is provided, it's no longer a weasel, but until then, it is and should not appear in an encyclopaedia. Should we say something here? —Ashley Y 09:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? The "citation needed" prompt doesn't necessarily relate to weaseling, it refers to any statement made that is not sourced, statements which may be made robustly and even definitely, but which noneless have not been supported by cited facts. A weasel term, on the other hand, is trying to hide the origin of who said what by concealing original voices by employing generalisiations, the passive voice, etc. Dieter Simon 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Dieter Simon 00:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have used the Template:fact to challenge statements which might be weasely. It's easier to put that there, give someone an opportunity to define the assertion ... or have it blitzed. I think there are times when there is a reference which supports it, the editor just didn't put in a footnote for it. Using the template lets editors know (or I HOPE it lets them know), "Okay, corroborate this, or it's on the block." David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
My experience has been that most weasel-word statements are added by people who don't participate regularily in the editing process, and as such are unlikely to come back and back-up their claims with cited sources. That's why I just delete weasel words, and unsourced information in general, on sight. It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. -/- Warren 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


The first paragraph of this "piece" contains no citations or reference to prior uses of the term "Weasel Words". At a minimum, it should refer or attribute such terminology to its creator, the irreverant crackhead radio talk show host Don Imus. Weasels. The neutrality of this article itself is questionable. 70.106.60.44 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Passive voice redux

I fail to see how the passive voice can permit omission any more than the active voice can. Why is "mistakes were made" an example of why not to use the horrid passive voice when you can also use the active voice and say "mistakes occurred"? In fact, there are three long-standing uses of the passive voice in the introduction to the Weasel word article: "Weasel words can be readily identified . . . are frequently used by politicians. A weasel word can be compared with . . ." Obviously no one who's read that intro has found it to be enough a problem to change it. Making a blanket proscription against the passive voice is just unhelpful. Strad 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to come up with a counter-argument for this but after some analysis I'm starting to think that you're right and essentially this recommendation has cause and effect confused. Certainly any weaselly passive voice statement can be rephrased in the active voice, given a little talent with juggling words ("...Have been questioned" becomes "doubts emerged...", "...Have been raised" becomes "Attention turned to...", et cetera). It's just that, with the aforementioned requirement of semantic juggling the passive voice is much easier to make weaselly statements in and thus most such statements will end up utilizing it. The relative sporadicity in the use of the passive voice otherwise promotes affirming the consequent in this case, concluding that if a sentence is in the passive voice, the chances of it being weaselly are significantly higher. This line of argument is not entirely invalid, but I think that logically the tone should shift from "Stay away from the yucky, icky passive voice" to "The passive voice makes you more prone to inadvertently omit sources and vaguely attribute statements, so be wary when using it". --AceMyth 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a reasonable position. I don't think the article really reflects that yet, especially with that gratuitous slight about the passive voice being "'less direct, less bold, and less concise'". I'm unsure of how much I should change without broader input. I guess... give it 10 days and if no one else responds I'll update it. Strad 17:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A better phrase?

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

Misuse of Policy

As a starting point, I'm interested that some people don't like the phrase "WP:WEASEL" I also think it's not good. But I had a question: I've found several instances recently where people are using this policy as an excuse for making completely unqualified (and unsourced) statements about large groups of people. E.g., in order to fix a sentence that says "Many people believe the Yankees are the best ever," they're saying it must be written as "People believe the Yankees are the best ever," since "many" is a Weasel Word. Is there a history of this? Has the issue been discussed? It seems a clarification against this would be very natural and appropriate. Any thoughts? Mackan79 03:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources." Obviously "people say" qualifies for this just about as much as "many people say". Deleting things on the basis of usage of specific words that are designated "weasel words" demonstrates a total failure to get the point of this guideline - We want to do away with unsourced statements, not words in the English language. --AceMyth 13:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Hi Looking for some comment on the use of ambiguous phrasing and whether it is weaselish or not, and hence should be included in this guideline.

My feeling is that if a word has multiple meanings any of which could support a POV, then it is potentially a weasel worrd, i.e. the editor could be deliberately using an ambiguous word to enforce an opinion (through their interpretaion of the word) but use a the argument that the word is used in its NPOV meaning.

I hope this makes sense.Belbo Casaubon 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It does make sense, though I think this falls not under weasel words but rather under Fairness of Tone. Both are closely related in that they compromise NPoV by word-juggling. --AceMyth 13:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You might be right by my thoughts are that use of ambiguous language destroys the force of a statement, ambiguity also allows and editor to use deliberately vague phrasing to promote a viewpoint. Belbo Casaubon 11:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review as Article of Faith (and weasel-word)

This post has been moved to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources in order to consolidate the discussion. --Philosophus T 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

'Commonly seen' and 'Widely acknowledged'

Does anyone object to me adding these two phrases as examples of weasel words? eg

  • John Smith is widely acknowledged to have been a homosexual

and

  • John Smith's account is commonly seen as unbelievable

Curtains99 13:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Widely considered to be one of the greatest of all time

On many articles concerning sportspersons, esp. tennis players, I ran into statements close to this: "[John McEnroe] is widely considered to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time." Initially, the statement was unsourced, so I removed it. It was reinstated with this online source. I accept that many people may in fact share this opinion, but it is an opinion nevertheless. And stating this in the intro is at least questionable. Or is it? Or am I being too dense over this? Please give me your opinion. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not "questionable" if the statement is true. Undoubtedly, there will be instances where it is debatable that a particular sports figure is among the greatest of all time in that sport. But there is no reasonable debate about Margaret Smith Court, Martina Navratilova, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras, Chris Evert, Andre Agassi, and Steffi Graf (the persons you have cited) being among the greatest tennis players of all time. Before you start unilaterally deleting statements in their articles, as you did with the John McEnroe article, you should ask the established editors what they think via the relevant discussion pages. Or, better yet, if the unsourcing disturbs you, you should be able to do a 1 minute Google search to find a reliable "among the greatest" source and fix the problem yourself by adding the link. Regards. Tennis expert 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly a content dispute and we are not having it here. But I'd appreciate any opinions on this. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't really characterize it as a content dispute... your question is relevant to this page. Concerning sports players, it is useful to think of the overall number of people who have played that sport. There must be and have been hundreds of millions of people who have played tennis, and I imagine hundreds of thousands of professional players. It makes sense that "one of the greatest tennis players of all time" would include rather a large number of people. Even a hundred would be a miniscule percentage of the total number of tennis players. I also found it amusing to note that there is a section in the Tennis article entitled: Tennis#The greatest player of all time. — Epastore 16:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words in articles about disputed topics

I'm running into a potential weasel word issue at Electronic voice phenomenon‎, a pseudoscientific topic that has some documented adherents but isn't accepted by the general public or scientists. In the case of a topic that most people don't believe exists, is it still WW to use things like "alleged", "what proponents/critics say is..." or even "proponents believe to be..."? In particular, is it still WW if there are citations providing examples of the positions/opinions and statements from individuals on both sides later in the article?

Looking at bigfoot, I see "alleged" used in the intro, and it seems necessary since leaving it out would result in "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is an ape-like animal..." which obviously is no good because it makes it sound like accepted fact.

In this particular case, one editor is arguing that edits that don't support his POV are "weasel" and has used this guideline as justification for wording that doesn't use as many of the words mentioned here, but makes opinions sound like accepted facts and skewing the POV of the article.

General recommendations would be helpful as well as outside opinions on the article Electronic voice phenomenon‎. At this point the dissenting editor is insisting on {{weasel}} and even {{incoherent}} tags on the article. Input would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific Consensus" as a Weasel Word?

I'm curious as to other users' opinions on the use of the phrase (or the idea of) "scientific consensus." On one hand, it could be considered a weasel word, as it doesn't directly reference any particular scientist. On the other hand, many elements of scientific consensus are not at all easily found in scientific articles (review articles exist for this purpose, but many of them are not that clear in stating what the consensus is). Obviously, there's huge room for abuse (e.g. quoting consensus where it doesn't exist), but it seems to me that the spirit of many scientific articles requires the use of phrases of that form. Thoughts?

Eteq 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This goes beyond editorial discretion into the political realm. How large a majority (or how small a minority) must there be, in order to declare that a scientific question has a consensus position? Some say[weasel words] that "scientific consensus" is not even a scientific concept at all; others say[weasel words] that it's a very useful concept. --Uncle Ed 17:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed, are you pretending that you do not know that WP:NPOV specifically says "The task before us ...is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."? Because it looks like you are and I know for a fact that you're well aware of the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, you seem to regard my question about how large a majority indicates "consensus" as containing an element of pretense. In other words, you are accusing me of lying, which is not a civil thing to do. Am I understanding you correctly? Do you literally think that asking about the size of a majority is the same thing as pretending I don't know we must distinguish between the majority and the minority?
If so, I would find that odd. I find it especially odd since I helped to establish community support for the very policy you accuse me of "pretending" not to know. For your information, there is a world of difference between agreeing to tag the majority and minority as such as opposed to wondering how large a majority must be to constitute a consensus.
If, for example, a poll of voters found that Republicans and Democrats were split 50-50 on an issue, would this constitute a "consensus" either way? (I hope you won't say it's a violation of policy to even ask this question!)
For another example, when we vote on afd or rfa, percentages like 75% to 80% have been deemed "consensus" for the purposes of deleting a page or promoting an admin. Can't I ask how large a percentage of scientists must support a theory, for Wikipedia to call it a "consensus view"? And may I not inquire how Wikipedia is to ascertain the percentage?
On a few extremely contentious issues (that is, issues which are political 'hot potatoes') it may not be equally obvious to all Wikipedians that a consensus has formed around any one view. However, partisans outside Wikipedia may declare that there is a consensus, citing opinion polls of experts or endorsements by organizations.
My questions, once again, are these:
  • What, if anything, does Wikipedia say about ascertaining the percentage of relevant experts who endorse a particular viewpoint?
  • How large a percentage must endorse a particular viewpoint on a scientific matter, for Wikipedia to declare that there is a "scientific consensus" on the matter?
We all know that 99.8% of U.S. biologists accept the Theory of evolution, and (if I have not done so before) I would personally propose that such a percentage is high enough to constitute a consensus. I have no problem with editors here labeling contrary views as "non-consensus", "opposing the consensus", "challenging the consensus", "outside the mainstream", etc.
Calling an opposing view "pseudoscience" is another matter. This entails the specific criticism that the view's proponent has failed to follow one or more steps of the scientific method. At talk:neutral point of view I posted what I recall from my high school and university science days as the classical, universally approved 4-point formulation of the scientific method. I might be wrong about it, though, because our article on Scientific method uses a different formulation with 7 steps. There is a major difference over whether a Hypothesis should be subject to logical scrutiny via the deduction of corollary assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true. My teachers explained to me that if a corollary deduction turns out not to be true, this "falsifies" the hypothesis! The most common thing about pseudoscience is the refusal to accept this sort of scrutiny.
But it's easy to maintain NPOV on pseudoscience. Rather than label it pseudoscience, Wikipedia can maintain its impartiality by either or both of two things:
  1. Cite scientific authorites who call it pseudoscience. E.g., the AMA called chiropractic's claim to promate general health by correctiong subluxations "pseudoscience". This fits the formuala: X said Y about Z, which I long promoted on the Wikipedia mailing list until it became an established part of NPOV. At least I 'think' it's still NPOV. Let me know if there has been a change.
  2. Show how it's pseudoscience by indicating in the article text how the view's proponents or formulators have omitted a step in the scientific method. For example, did they neglect to mention a way their hypothesis might be falsified?
We've been through all this before, I reckon, unless I've mentioned a new point (like the corollary thing). How many times must I declare my support for the policy that we maintain neutrality by indicating that majority views are in the majority and that minority views are in the minority? Would a fresh example help? In the field of human intelligence, a minority of researchers believes that low average scores on IQ tests indicates an innate deficiency in black people, while the mainstream view is that this belief is unfounded. All my edits to, and discussions about, the Race and intelligence article have consistently made this point. (However, if it can be shown in any way that the "blacks are born stupid" view enjoys more than minority support, I would agree to let the article say so, even though I wouldn't be happy about it. Rules are rules. But heretofore, everything I've seen indicates it's a minority view, which is the reason I keep calling it that.)
I don't think it "undermines" science (as an institution) to say that polls or journals indicate that A MINORITY OF SCIENTISTS questions a particular scientific hypothesis or theory. And it by no means is a violation of Wikipedia policy to add minority viewpoints to an article, provided they are clearly marked as minority views. For example, only 0.2% (1 in 500) of biologists questions evolution, so I have always said that alternate ideas like ID are the work of a "minority" who are challenging the mainstream.
I am well aware that the task of describing a dispute fairly requires us Wikipedia editors to to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view. So please stop pretending that you don't know I know this. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please update this sentence.

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

50% + epsilon, rather... --AceMyth 05:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited this to read:

"Most" can range from any amount more than 50% up to 100%

is that better? Cogswobble 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

'Incidents'

Universities and antisemitism, currently up for deletion, contains several uses of this word. To my mind, this is a textbook example of a weasel word in action, and I'm surprised that it is not mentioned on this page. Using 'incident' without mentioning what counts as an incident serves to conceal vital information, such as the severity of the 'incidents'. One can imagine a situation where antisemitic physical attacks are going down, but verbal abuse is going up by more, leading to an 'increase in incidents'.

Instead of using it without context, it should be explained what constitutes an 'incident'. Better still would be to use more specific terms, rather than such a broad brush.--Nydas(Talk) 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel word template

According to some[weasel words], weasel words a problem at Wikipedia, so the need for a template became clear[weasel words]. Okay, heh, I over-used it, but you get the point. Instead of slapping a menacing {{fact}} template on a poorly worded sentence, we can now use the {{weasel word}} variant.

I tweaked the category it puts pages in, so that we can create a Category:Articles using weasel words category.

Hope I didn't jump the gun by saying "you can add" in the project page. Just revert me there if I was too quick. I actually like discussions! :-) --Uncle Ed 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That template was not setup for dealing with weasel words at all, but rather attribution, thus it has been moved to {{Views needing attribution}}, but there is some thought that it is unnecessary in light of {{Fact}} and the dozen or so templates redirecting to Fact. FeloniousMonk 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of Image

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

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
  1. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica article on Shakespeare, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia article on Shakespeare, Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia article on Shakespeare. Accessed Feb. 26, 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words/Archive_2&oldid=1146516383"