Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Straw Poll

Supporters of "avoid peacock terms" include:

  • David Gerard (I love it, I love it)
  • Revolver (Finally...I made this remark at The Beatles a long time ago, which I consider one of the most awful offenders.)
  • Oska I absolutely agree with this very significant addition to the seminal Wikipedia style guide. Oska 02:03, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • CheeseDreams Me. P.s. I don't like Haydn at all, and I think Mozart is mediocre, compared with Monteverdi. CheeseDreams 00:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Chiming in late. Not as bad as "ironically", but still inherantly POV unless backed up.
  • Deltabeignet (not a hard rule, but important to remember. Peacock terms should be acceptable placeholders for valid information, but not permanent additions.)
  • AI It is not overly broad, special exceptions of appropriately used peacocks should hold up to scrutiny. Less hot air.
  • User:GeeJo Very much agree with the addition. Opinion without anything to back it up doesnt belong in a serious encyclopedia.
  • ColdCaffeine Cite, CITE, CITE!
  • BenAveling 08:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Never say never, but as a rule, avoid.
  • McTrixie/Mr Accountable 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I cannot properly express how distracting it is to find "peacock terms" in an otherwise informative encyclopedia.

Opponents of "avoid peacock terms" include:

  • NetEsq (overly broad)
  • kwertii (overly broad; pejorative name for a very useful and usually entirely appropriately used category of words; if a qualitative conclusion is generally agreed upon by the relevant scholars, then that should be stated directly, using so-called "peacock" and/or "weasel" terms.)
  • Tannin If Mozart was the greatest composer of the classical period, say so. Always tell it like it is. No more, no less.
    • A lot of people think Haydn was at least as "great" (whatever that means). And Glenn Gould hated Mozart. There are few universal concensus on "greatness". Revolver
A good example of why peacock terms are poor writing style.--AI 18:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • doom opposed, for the same reasons I oppose the "weasel words" guide.
    • ...
    • it's his (POV) :)--AI 18:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wincoote It breeds unnecessay nervousness that worthwhile truths will be subjected to inappropriate pov allegations, for example a non-British user who thought it was pov to say that the Royal Opera is the leading opera company in the UK. This is fact not opinion (and I go to its rival on the London opera scene more often - because it is cheaper), and what better way is there of getting it across to people who don't know than just telling them directly? Wincoote 02:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • People make "POV accusations", and sometimes they're wrong. Any such accusation, if invalid, can be refuted with further evidence; for example, if someone says POV to the Royal Opera, you simply answer they're the oldest, most popular, best reviewed (perhaps), they attract the top flight dancers, they've been declared the greatest by the International Ballet Company Evaluating Company Company. Only the last of those is a POV -- unless, of course, the article says "The IBCECC considers the Royal Opera to be the leading opera company". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Apoc2400 I often look up a term knowing close to nothing about it. The importantness of the subject is important encyclopedic information. As long as it is NPOV, it's fine.
  • We delete pages that don't assert notability. Therefore it is nonsense to ban language that attempts to do so. I find the examples of pages that use "Peacock Terms" in an appropriate way below pretty convincing. Stevage 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    We delete pages that are not notable. Slight difference. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Too broad. Sometimes such words are useful.--Bkwillwm 06:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • too broad. Rjensen 07:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sometimes it is more effective to rapidly communicate a point and summarize. If articles only provide facts, and not any analysis or interpretation of these facts, what if the reader does not know how to take them? I use the example from this article, William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) was personal counselor to King Charles I, royalist general in the English Civil War, a chemist, poet, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded his family's possessions to include the proprietorship of the Province of New Hampshire and the hereditary Lord High Bailiffship of Guernsey and Sark.. Now when I read this, it does not give me any sense of the importance or relative accomplishments of this person. Using a "peacock term" that simply outright states he is "considered, by some people, to be the most important man ever to carry that title," much more effectively communicates the point than giving the reader a handful of facts that may or may not have any meaning. Therefore I support peacock terms that are backed up with facts. Exclusive bad apple 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dukes and Einstein

I sort of half-buy this. The words can be used carefully, for instance, on a graded scale of "the most important", "one of the most important", "important", "notable", and "obscure". These are all somewhat subjective, but not POV if all the editors agree on the ranking, and serve the important :-) purpose of telling readers whether the subject of the article rate. Consider "random page"; if it brings up one of the ten Dukes of Omnium, I'd like to get a general idea of how this duke rates compared to the other Omnia, other lords, Englishmen as a whole, etc, and preferably in the lead paragraph so I know whether I want to bother reading further. In practice of course, the terms are misused a lot, reducing the value of the grading system. Stan 17:26 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible to use these in some kind of true way, like Albert Einstein was the most important physicist of the 20th century. But there's really not much information there -- it's kind of just noise. It'd be better to say, Albert Einstein created the theory of relativity, which changed how scientists view the universe. I think it's a lot better to give the concrete particulars of a person's achievements than to say, This person was really really really really really really important. Again, though, this is an "avoid", not an "avoid like the plague". -- ESP 00:25 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's alright for Einstein, but what about (say) Mozart or Bach? Do we have to start the article with quotations from musicians and music critics to establish that these were Great Composers (tm)? I'd say: always consider if you can replace a peacock term with impressive facts, if you cannot, then just put it in and let the Force of Wiki sort it out. In extreme cases this could be a NPOV issue, but for most peacock terms it doesn't get half as serious. I think the problem here is caused by the word "avoid". Just turn it into "replace", and voila -- constructive! -- Anonymous Mar 30 2004
On the Dukes of Omnium -- ha ha -- which of these two ledes really gets you reading?
William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? - May 8, 1691) is widely considered to be one of the most important men to carry that title.
William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? - May 8, 1691) was personal counselor to King James I, general in the Wars of the Roses, a chemist, bandleader, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revokation for civil-service appointments in India.
The first tells the reader that the subject is important; the second shows the reader that the subject is important (or, at least, important to some people). I think it's up to the reader to decide what is important to them. -- ESP 01:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

I agree. Peacock terms (great name for it, btw) usually seem to be placeholders used by editors unprepared or too lazy to make good well-researched statements. Obviously, it's much easier to write "one of the most important" than all the concrete statements in your above example. (that example should go on the policy page itself, I think). One of my creative writing professors always told me "show; don't tell." As placeholders, however, such terms serve much the same purpose as stub articles; they give interested editors an opportunity to expand and improve the article. This is a good policy! -- Wapcaplet 02:14 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I half-agree because indeed specificity is good; but part of our task is to condense and summarize. To use the Peckinridge example above, the second example buries the reader with detail without placing in context - was Peckinridge the best personal counselor ever, or an embarassing failure because he spent too much working on a crackpot theory organizing chemical compounds by musical notes? If the reader doesn't even know where or what Guiana is, the specific description gives no hint as to whether the Guiana protectorship is of any general interest, or just a factoid added because the encyclopedist is showing off. Or to come back closer to reality, the Einstein example saying his theory "changed how scientists view the universe" is specific and accurate but useless, because NASA says that about everything they do these days, down to and including Jake Garn's barf bag. The ideal lead paragraph needs to include the overall assessment/context, and the rest of the article can then support that assertion with specific and detailed explanations. I do agree, however, that the terms are overused; only 1 in 20 senators should get to be "one of the most important", the others are just "served", and maybe "notable for X". Stan 04:57 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Cool! So now there's 2-1/2 of us. Seriously, criticism well stated, but again as with all rules of thumb, this is one that can be bent. In general the peacock phrases should be avoided if possible. -- ESP 05:08 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock Pejorative, Dukes and Tolstoy

I disagree with this guideline, and also with the pejorative designation "peacock terms" for this category of words, for much the same reasons as I've already stated on Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms. We're not writing a math textbook here, and it is not fitting to always use exact, scientific language when talking about qualitative rather than quantitative fields of study. Certainly, these "peacock terms" can be misused to convey a POV, but this doesn't imply that there are not legitimate uses for this category of phraseology. If a particular duke is generally regarded by historians or others who study dukes as the best/worst/whateverest person to carry the title, then that is important information to have in the article. Better than either example above (assuming that William Peckenridge is, in fact, widely regarded as one of the most important Dukes of Omnium ever) would be:

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? - May 8, 1691) was personal counselor to King James I, general in the Wars of the Roses, a chemist, bandleader, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revokation for civil-service appointments in India. Peckenridge is widely regarded as one of the most important men ever to carry his title.

Likewise, I think the Tolstoy example over on Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms presents a perfect instance of the type of situtation where so-called "peacock terms" and "weasel terms" are entirely appropriate. If a qualitative point is generally accepted by those who study a topic, then it should be so noted in the article in the clearest manner possible - which necessitates the use of "weasel" or "peacock" terms. Count my vote against this one, too. Kwertii 00:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The thing is that this policy (call it a strong suggestion?) addresses a real problem. Have you ever noticed how so very many obscure rock bands or albums are vastly influential and highly critically regarded, going by their articles? "Avoid peacock terms" or something synonymous is pretty much the appropriate response. (Look at some versions of Mariah Carey for an egregious example.)
Note also it says "Avoid peacock terms," not "Peacock terms are banned by policy and to be deleted on sight." - David Gerard 01:06, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

The example used here is highly confusing: "and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" -- is this an attempt at humor? Or is it encouraged practice to mix real and fictional identities in this way?

[edit] Predictions of rampant deletionism, and a quest for actual examples

hehe. I see your point. Though, I think that the obscure rock band articles will continue to be like that, even with this policy. That's just unavoidable; everyone's going to write up their friends' band as vastly influential and highly critically regarded; all that can be done with that sort of thing is just to fix it when it happens.
It's nice having a policy style suggestion to refer them to. Particularly in cases like Mariah Carey, where the edit history reads like a circle of fans assiduously restoring the peacock terms whenever deleted.
On the other hand, having a formal policy like this will frequently be used as justification for editing out "good" uses of "peacock terms", removing potentially vast amounts of useful information like that War and Peace is generally regarded as Tolstoy's best work, or that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are Tolkien's best work, or that most people who study dukes think that Duke Peckenridge was the best Duke of Omnium ever, etc.
Are there a lot of examples of this happening? Do they ever get sorted out on the talk page?
There're just waaaaaaaay too many cases where this sort of wording is "good" and should be used - not to mention that having a negatively cast title for this type of word automatically biases the sort against using these terms. Kwertii 01:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think it having a negatively cast title like "peacock terms", and the resulting bias against their use, is a good thing in general. It's a phenomenon I've always wanted a term for so I could gently suggest not acting otherwise, and "peacock terms" is an excellent one. (Perhaps I've been appalled by too many press releases.)
I suggest it be moved to a more general style guide with a strong caveat to discuss it on the talk page. (The answer to "Critics acclaim it as ..." is "name some, or lots, in the article if it doesn't break the flow.") This is much more style-guide level stuff than hard policy. - David Gerard 01:46, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The discussion is doomed

I'm opposed to this entry for the same reasons I've stated in the "weasel words" discussion (I'm glad to see someone likes my Tolstoy example). I have to say that I think that the "But it's only a rule of thumb!" defense is pretty weaselly in itself. Far from being something to avoid, the usage of peacock and weasel terms are an absolute necessity to present a quick, general, summary of why anyone would care about a topic. It's often desireable to go on and provide more detail later, but trying to do it all at once is a formula for incomprehensible expository lumps, and it's one of my major peeves with a lot of wikipedia writing. Factual writing need not be dry, tedious and boring, and you will not achieve total objectivity (or even neutrality) no matter how tedious you're willing to get. - Doom 22:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
OK then. Do we have examples of articles which have been trashed with this as the excuse? - David Gerard 23:35, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
When you look at an article about a writer, and you find that it leads off with a detailed listing of biographical events without any explication of why anyone would care about this writer, then you're looking at one of the victims of this "just the facts, mam" attitude. -- Doom 18:20, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Writing with lots of peacock terms is tedious and boring. It's empty stuffing that doesn't actually say anything. Avoiding peacock terms helps focus on the concrete, making writing more stimulating and enjoyable. Words like "great", "important", "best", "influential" are so abstract as to be useless. --ESP 18:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
"Ground abstractions in specifics" is a good rule. However, "Don't use abstractions" is not a good rule.
And further (probably the real dispute here): "Never present value judgements" is *also* not a good rule. -- Doom 17:27, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. However, "try to avoid value judgements without substantiation" is an entirely suitable rule IMO. I've given examples of the sort of article that really needs to be told "avoid peacock terms"; do you have examples of articles which have been trashed with it as the excuse? I want to know concretely how we can keep something like this but avoid practical examples of the theoretical objections being raised here - David Gerard 18:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Real articles sporting positive peacocks

David Gerard writes: 'Absolutely. However, "try to avoid value judgements without substantiation" is an entirely suitable rule IMO.'

First of all: that's not what this rule says, is it? If you believe that sentences should have verbs with their subjects, you don't recommend that people avoid using subjects.

(And: how hard do you try and avoid it, and how much substantiation is necessary? I also claim that reference to a general consensus view is often okay, though that's derided next door as the use of "weasel terms".)

David Gerard continues: ' I've given examples of the sort of article that really needs to be told "avoid peacock terms"; ':

I understand that there are problems with empty fanboy gushing, my complaint is that these rules appear to be attempts at attacking a symptom rather than the problem.

David Gerard: 'do you have examples of articles which have been trashed with it as the excuse?'

It isn't hard to find examples of the use of "peacock terms" (known in ordinary english as "superlatives") that seem entirely appropriate. Try doing searches of the existing wiki nodes for phrases like "most influential"; "world's greatest"; "most significant", etc.

Here's a selection:

Bertrand_Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (May 18, 1872 - February 2, 1970) was one of the most influential mathematicians, philosophers and logicians working (mostly) in the 20th century, an important political liberal, activist and a populariser of philosophy.

Marco_Polo

Marco Polo is widely regarded as one of the world's greatest explorers -- although some skeptics rather see him as the world's greatest storyteller.

String quartet

Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) - wrote sixteen quartets widely regarded as among the finest quartets by any composer

Unix

The early development of what is believed to be one of the most influential operating systems in history was unique, and nobody would have predicted the growth of UNIX after its first incarnation.

Tourism in India

Perhaps India's best-known site is the Taj Mahal, one of the world's greatest architectural achievements.

Alain Robert

Alain Robert, born April 7, 1962 in Valence, France, is one of the world's greatest rock and urban climbers.

DOOM

Due to its contributions to the first-person shooter genre, DOOM is widely regarded as one of the most influential games of all time.

-- Doom 20:36, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

That isn't the question I asked. The question I asked was whether articles were being trashed with this as the excuse. Do you have examples? I'm not questioning that superlatives are appropriate in many cases, at all. - David Gerard 20:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Now that was a fast response. I was just ducking in to try and improve my examples.
But anyway: yeah, I know I'm not directly answering the question that you asked, because what you're asking for is quite hard to dig up. If your point here is that there's a need to think about the effects that rules have on the group dynamic, consider the plight of a would be author that starts feeling vaugely guilty about the way they're writing about a subject, and decides to put it aside until they can find a way to re-write it from a god-like view stripped of human values. Or consider the kind of writing that I was complaining about: articles that launch into factual detail without making an attempt to explain why the subject is worth discussing.
Here's an example that comes to mind of that syndrome... though I fixed it with the judicious addition of a "weasel" ("Best known for") rather than a "peacock" in this case (though maybe "very distinctive style" counts).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Damon_Runyon&diff=2844604&oldid=2481286
Or if you like, you could join me over in Talk:Gary_Snyder where I ponder how to improve the lead "Gary Snyder (born May 8, 1930) is an American poet and environmental activist. Often associated with the Beats, his work represents one of the most significant attempts to bridge the gap between nature and culture in 20th century literature."
-- Doom 21:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
Both are to be avoided if possible. That's why this is in style guides rather than hard policies.
I'm having similar troubles writing about Australian indie rock bands. Amongst the many things Wikipedia is not is a rock'n'roll fanzine. I'm seriously thinking about a separate wiki for the purpose. But for Wikipedia purposes, the exercise reinforces (to me) why "Avoid peacock terms" is an excellent guide for articles on subjective phenomena of this sort. - David Gerard 22:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A "rule of thumb" is generally taken as something which is usually true, not something thing which quite often isn't. I posted a half-dozen examples of well-written articles that are "exceptions to the rule". I could post another half-dozen today. How many days would I have to keep going before you'd admit that this "rule of thumb" isn't?
I've found it useful to keep in mind, and useful in describing what's wrong in many other articles.

[edit] Scribbling in the Sandbox

Anyway, I've started playing around with writing a possible replacement for these two disputed rules. Currently it's in my sandbox (where it's less likely to be trashed immediately): User:DoomSandbox. Discussion welcome. -- Doom 06:45, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
That's excellent! I'll probably have a play with it at some stage soon - David Gerard 11:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to think you're joking and you wouldn't actually want to replace two rules about clarity in writing with something entitled "Using Superlative Compliments and References To Consensus". Can you possibly be serious? --ESP 17:52, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to this particular terminology, but I suggest you actually read the commentary on the two disputed pages, you might notice that many people say they object to the terms "peacock" and "weasel". These are made-up terms that don't mean anything before you read the articles, and they're also unnecessarily derisive. They admittedly have the advantage of being colorful and possibly easier to remember. Possibly the article should be titled "Peacock-Weasel Miscegenation".
By the way: is it expected that a beginning author is going to read the entire style guide before writing an article? It's already much too long. I had the impression you folks want to use these pages as ammunition to shoot down people you're arguing with by referring back to the style guide. -- Doom 21:51, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
"weasel wording" is a common term in English. ("peacock wording" isn't, but IMO should be.) - David Gerard 22:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, "weasel" isn't unusual as slang, but the article is using it in an extremely specific way that *is* unusual. Non-specific attribution certainly isn't the only form of "weaseling", and maybe isn't *always* a form of "weaseling" (this is one of the points of contention). -- Doom 05:53, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
The name is presently awful, but the article looks like it could become something good.
Another re-write is out in my sandbox, if anyone's interested: "Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution". This one has a shorter title (with some simplified terminology), and I've changed the introductory spiel into a conclusion. -- Doom 06:43, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionism in Action

The objections appear to be that these may be damn useful rules for writing, but people fear they will be misused for unwarranted deletionism. How to 2. emphasise they should be applied at article creation 1. get them applied at article creation? - David Gerard 21:26, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"but people fear they will be misused for unwarranted deletionism", that isn't *exactly* what I'm afraid of... though I do note that the beginning of the Gary_Snyder article has been ravaged by a rather dogmatic application of what's supposed to be "just a rule of thumb"... -- Doom 05:53, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
In that case, put it back and justify better in the body of the article? - David Gerard 07:49, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Ravaged"? You asked to have some help making it clearer! It's not dogmatism -- it's just writing better. I don't think you quite understand that. You seem to think these rules are here to make people feel stupid or wrong. But they're here because we have some special pressures in Wikipedia due to NPOV, and there are some things we need to do to keep NPOV from making flat, empty prose. --ESP 22:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Strangely enough I don't think the lack of understanding is on my end. I think you're over-interpreting neutrality (perhaps confusing it with objectivity?).
A small example: "Gary Snyder is a beat poet" is harder to support than "Gary Snyder is often associated with the beat movement". Despite the fact that this includes a dreaded weasel, it's probably more accurate, and certainly more neutral.
So yeah, I'll probably try and improve the Snyder page at some point... presuming I'm not getting into an edit war with a fanatic. -- Doom 01:22, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. NPOV make it difficult to use peacock words in an article. We end up using a lot of verbiage to explain whether or not someone was really one of the most important great poets or not. The thing is, readers don't care. A sentence like Some people may think that Gary Snyder was one of the greatest poets, but others think he was among the most influential is just devoid of content. It's much better to stick with the facts, and let the reader decide how great or influential he was. It reads better, and it's more informative. --ESP 05:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
ESP wrote on 05:20, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC):
I understand where you're coming from.
Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't. What I'm worried about is a kind of reductionism, a tendency to say what's easy to say (e.g. who did what when) instead of what really needs to be said (why does it matter?). My *guess* is that you've fallen into a philosophic trap: you beleive that it's possible and desireable for an encylopedia to restrict itself to hard-edged, measurable facts; i.e. you have neutrality confused with objectivity.
(This is an understandable error: the world is so full of empty hype and sloppy thinking, I can sympathise with a yearning for simple truth and certainty, but you can overdo these things...)
NPOV make it difficult to use peacock words in an article.
Here's an interesting quotation from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia.
Compare that to this remark you made in a talk page next store:
ESP wrote on 18:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC) in Talk: Avoid weasel terms:
What metric do we have for saying which of Tolstoy's novels is "greater"? Why is that encyclopedic, anyways?
So, lacking a metric for greatness, you declare it irrelevant. But this does not actually seem to square with the NPOV discussion... (But could you do me a favor and don't immediately jump into that page and hack it up so that it agrees with you?)
We end up using a lot of verbiage to explain whether or not someone was really one of the most important great poets or not. The thing is, readers don't care.
Oh please. Very often the reader does care.
A sentence like Some people may think that Gary Snyder was one of the greatest poets, but others think he was among the most influential is just devoid of content. It's much better to stick with the facts, and let the reader decide how great or influential he was. It reads better, and it's more informative.
Look back at my "small example" about Gary Snyder being a beat, or a guy associated with the Beats. One is arguably wrong, the other is indisputably a fact. Now you're saying that brevity trumps accuracy?
And as I -- and other people -- have tried to explain, it frequently reads *very* badly to lead off with a bunch of facts without explaining where you're going with the facts. (If you believe it's possible to list facts *without* having any intent behind them, then we're back to the "philosophic error" I was talking about above...) -- Doom 20:11, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A perfect of example distinguishing positive peacocks from offending fowl

Doom, et al, I understand your concerns. Frankly, almost every example you cited, I don't have the slightest problem with. (The example where text is bolded.) Certainly, making a statement about the general concensus of someone or something is not out of line. I don't think David or I are saying otherwise. HERE is an example of what we ARE talking about, and maybe you will see the difference. This is a version of the opening paragraph of The Beatles from around February 2004.

The Beatles are the most influential popular music artists in modern times, ranking alongside with Bach and Beethoven for sheer historical impact, affecting the culture of Britain and America and the postwar baby boom generation, and the entire English-speaking world, especially during the 1960s and early 1970s. Certainly they're the most successful, with global sales reaching past 1.3 billion records sold as of 2004. Their influences on popular culture extended far beyond their roles as recording artists, as they branched out into film and even semi-willingly became spokesmen for their generation. The members of the group were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey), all from Liverpool, England. The effect of the Beatles on Western culture (and by extension) on the rest of the world has been immeasurable.

Notice how much more is bolded here than in the examples you gave. Also notice how much more boring, fluffy, and devoid of content it reads. (It has changed somewhat, since then, I should mention.)

Revolver 00:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it seems boring and fluffy exactly, but it doesn't read much like traditional encyclopedia writing either. It's overblown, and needed to be toned down -- much like the Gary Snyder example I was talking about above -- and you're right, the current version has indeed been toned down... but according to the weasel/peacock rules, there's still a lot of stuff in there that's supposed to be avoided. You're supposed to feel guilty for saying that the Beatles was the most influential rock band of the sixties?
My contention is that the problem isn't the weasels or peacocks, the problem is in the attitude of the person doing the writing. Telling someone to fix the symptom rather than the problem is just wrong -- it's like slapping make-up over the measels. (Though actually, I guess the real thing that's bothering me is these two rules don't make any effort at distinguishing between measels and freckles.)
Look at the wording of the current version of the "avoid peacocks" rule: what it literally tells you to do is to launch into a bunch of factual statements that're supposed to imply what you're getting at without actually saying it. My claim is that we shouldn't be encouraging that style: it's really okay to just tell them. -- Doom 07:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, this should be an informal style guideline, not an actual policy. How to word a style guideline that aims to discourage the "problem" rather than the "symptom"? It's hard to give clearcut norms that would apply in every case, so in that sense it's a matter of judgment often. But then again, so are most things when it comes to good writing, but that doesn't stop us from making informal guidelines or suggestions.
As for feeling guilty to say they were the most influential rock band of 60s, that's not what the article originally said (I would say what it says now, "among the most influential popular music artists"...even if you disagree, it's hard to say that Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, James Brown, or the Rolling Stones aren't very closeby in the running.) The Bach/Beethoven analogy is a red herring, and the last sentence says nothing. The stuff in the middle is not really so bad. Revolver 21:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would add, even the way it's worded now, it says "avoid peacock terms", not "abolish peacock terms". "But according to the weasel/peacock rules, there's still a lot of stuff in there that's supposed to be avoided." Again, boils down to subject interpretation of peacock. "Among the most influential popular music artists" or "an enormous impact beyond music" or something I wouldn't consider as such. "Ranking with Bach/Beethoven for historical impact", or "The effect of the Beatles on Western culture and the rest of the world has been immeasurable [without some kind of description]" I would. If someone has a problem that guidelines are subject to apply, I'm not sure what to say. That's something inherent about laws or even informal guidelines -- they can't cover all possible cases. Revolver 21:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've repeated this a few times now, but let me try another paraphrase: there are limits to how far the "but it's just a rule of thumb!" defense can be used to cover a dubious rule. If the idea is that anything that can be misused should be avoided, then we've got a general rule to avoid using everything. Even if the idea is to avoid things that are frequently misused, that still covers a huge ground (e.g. statistics).
How to word a style guideline that aims to discourage the "problem" rather than the "symptom"? My answer is that you do it something like this: "Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution". You drop the pretence that you're talking about words, and make it clear that you're discussing attitudes. -- Doom 07:20, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles

At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Gesture words"

I removed the section on "gesture words". A Wikipedia:Avoid gesture words article would probably be the better place for that discussion, rather than buried in the middle of this one. --ESP 13:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another node

I've added my proposed replacement to the style guide Wikipedia:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution -- Doom 22:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I love this concept! It nicely nails down the number one annoyance I find with articles lately. There ought to be some kind of automatic "peacock filter" applied to all articles about pop stars, alleged "cult" filmmakers, and other celebrities whose articles are mostly the product of slppy fanboy/girls. - Unsigned anon comment from 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs)


[edit] Addition on positive peacocks?

How about adding a section to this article about how to tell the difference between true peacock terms and useful info about a subject's importance? (Ordinarily I'd just be bold and edit such a section in myself, but since this is a controversial Wikipedia guideline I thought I'd test the waters first.) 68.226.239.73 01:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference? I can't think of a good example of using "important", "the best", "significant". --ESP 18:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's been a number of examples suggested earlier on this talk page. There's an entire thread entitled "Real articles sporting positive peacocks." Here's a few more examples:
"William Shakespeare...has a reputation as one of the greatest writers in the English language..." (Note also that the subject of Shakespeare's reputation is important enough that it has its own article.)
"Along with Plato, he is often considered to be one of the two 'most influential philosophers in Western thought."
"He is counted among the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century..."
"...generally regarded as one of Europe's most influential thinkers and the last major philosopher of the Enlightenment. He had a decisive impact on the Romantic and Idealist philosophies of the 19th century, and his work has also been a starting point for 20th century philosophers."
"...is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." (The Einstein article is a good example of the distinction - contrast this sentence with the third paragraph of its intro, which does strike me as being nothing but peacock despite the fact that it's all true.)
"...Beethoven is widely regarded as one of the greatest of composers. His reputation has inspired—and in many cases intimidated—composers, musicians, and audiences who were to come after him."
"Many scholars, including Aristotle, considered Sophocles to be the greatest playwright in ancient Greek theatre."
In all of these cases, if you don't know that the information that I bolded, you're lacking significant information about the subject. Look up these topics in any paper encyclopedia and you'll probably find words like "greatest" and "influential" in most or all of them. 68.226.239.73 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to downgrade status of "Avoid peacock terms" in the Style Guide

The "Style Guide" box used on this page states that it was included as part of the Style Guide through editor consensus. However, a glance at this talk page indicates that there has never been anything like a consensus among editors over this page; quite the contrary, in fact. Many, many editors strongly dispute this policy. Therefore, I propose that it be removed from the Style Guide, and placed in a weaker "disputed style polices" section or some such. Kwertii 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What the self-described opponents of this guideline seem to be saying that 'absolutely best' is OK if the person really is the best, even if it can't be justified somehow. The problem is that when there isn't a way to justify something, it's sometimes because it's not true. So we have two choices: we allow unsubstantiated claims or we don't. And according to WP:NOR, we don't. That means that instead of "most popular" or "best" we say "$RECORD spent $NUMBER_OF_WEEKS in the top 10", or we say that "$EXPERT said $BAND was the best in $WHATEVER".
This guidelines isn't standalone, it's just a special case of WP:NOR and maybe we should say that here and maybe in WP:NOR as well. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] APT allows non notable articles?

I also note that it's in direct contrast to various guidelines for deleting articles that make no claim to notability. There's also a slight problem with claiming that the reader will judge whether the ice hockey player, canton or species of beetle is worth the reader's time. I suspect in many cases they aren't, and they are not notable, but are included for completeness. Is it worth in that case actually including the words "An unremarkable ice hockey player who received an NHL ring (or whatever) by being part of the winning team in 1983, although he never played a game." Stevage 17:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Such a player (assuming no other notability) doesn't deserve a page. An entry in the main article about the 1983 whatever is enough, probably more than enough. Using peacock terms about such a player would not make an article about the player any better, or any less deserving of an AFD. It might make an AFD harder to determine, but I don't see that as an argument for allowing peacock terms. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Fwiw, I wasn't suggesting using peacock terms in that case - rather the opposite. I was suggesting explicitly downplaying the importance of the subject, lest the reader be misled. Stevage 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why "peacock"?

Why is it called "peacock" terms? Where does this concept come from? /skagedal[talk] 11:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Presumably phrases like "proud as a peacock". The concept being that peacocks look proud, self-inflated etc. Stevage 13:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
A good assumption, I must say. —Eternal Equinox | talk 17:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

Objections to this style guide on the talk page do not make it a rejected guide.

I'd love to see a formal discussion of the guideline, but until that time, it's incorrect to mark it "rejected". --ESP 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no consensus for this guideline. See the strawpoll at the top of this page. It's also not being followed to any significant extent. You can mark it whatever you like, but this is clearly not a guideline that has "wide support". Stevage 04:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So what do you propose? Articles should be allowed make claims unsupported by evidence if it makes them sound more significant? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the general principle against "instruction creep" suggests that no guideline is better than a bad guideline. So I would propose nothing. :) Stevage 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, ESP, do you know of a formal process that made this an "official guideline"? Maybe it should never have been in the first place. Stevage 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections

These terms do not help establish the importance of an article. Let the facts speak for themselves. If the ice hockey player, canton, or species of beetle is worth the reader's time, it will come out in the facts. Insisting on its importance clutters the writing and adds nothing.

IMHO, this is totally incorrect. The introduction should establish extremely quickly the notability of the subject. Example of an overly modest intro that obeys this rule: Freddie Mercury "Freddie Mercury (September 5, 1946 – November 24, 1991) was a British Asian singer, pianist and songwriter for the English rock band, Queen." If you weren't familiar with the band, you could be forgiven for thinking we were talking about an un-notable singer for some tiny garage band.Stevage 07:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right about that article, it needs some serious fixing and an intro that does what you say. But sprinkling peacock terms through the intro wouldn't be an improvement. It needs a complete rewrite; start with a summary of the man, his talent, his popularity, his controversial nature, then work through all of those things and more. If that sounds a lot harder than just saying "he was the greatest", it is. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a complete rewrite would be the solution to most problems. But I argue that sprinkling a few phrases like "exceptional voice", "phenomenal stage presence" and "very successful songwriter" would improve the article as it currently stands. It could be improved further, of course - but these "peacock terms" would be in the short term an improvement, not a detriment. Stevage 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that the Freddie Mercury example above isn't really valid here. For purposes of determining notability for Wikipedia, notability of the subject is demonstrated by the article as a whole, not just by the introductory paragraph. Freddie Mercury and Queen have many, many albums, awards and historical, verifiable information that can be included in their article, all of which serve to objectively prove Mercury's fame and importance. You can, in fact, simply say he was "lead singer of Queen" in the introduction, then follow that up with a long list of his actual accomplishments, and that would leave the reader just as impressed with his background as if you included the phrase "leader of the famous rock band Queen", etc. No reasonable person is going to read only the first sentence or two of an article and claim the subject is notable/not-notable without reading the rest of the article.
So in reality it's not actually necessary for an article about Queen or Freddie Mercury to literally say he's "groundbreaking" or "famous" or whatever. You can list his actual accomplishments, and thereby demonstrate directly to the reader just how important they are.Dugwiki 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page rename

While I support the guideline, I dislike the name. Some suggestions below. Additions and comments welcome. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Avoid wank words
  2. Avoid empty claims
  3. Avoid hollow praise
I don't think 'hollow praise' captures it. The first is borderline offensive. Maybe work the word 'vacuous' in there somewhere. Hopefully this will steer the guideline somewhere useful. Instead of saying "Don't use words like 'the greatest'", it should be saying something like "don't use superlatives unless they're justified in the body of the article" or something. Stevage 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"Avoid hyperbole" too. -Quiddity 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


--how about "avoid unnecessary adulation?

Another thing to consider is that this guideline can also cover exagerated negative comments. For example, an article shouldn't normally use phrases like "hideous", "reprehensible", "one of the worst", without proper citation of a reliable source using those words. Just as you shouldn't heap unverified praise on someone, you likewise shouldn't pile unverified scorn.
With that in mind, I agree that "peacock" is misleading, since it implies only positive phrases are a problem. How about calling it "Avoid uncited descriptions"? Meaning that if you're going to call something "one of the worst/greatt", you should have a corresponding citation backing you up. Dugwiki 15:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Uncited assessments" would seem to describe the idea more accurately. john k 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with "uncited assessments".Dugwiki 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Duke of Omnium

Because I am a massive dork, I have changed the Duke of Omnium example around so that (aside from the joke reference to the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) he has become a plausible 17th century English nobleman. I've put his birth rather earlier, made him a counselor to Charles I instead of James I, changed the war he was a general in to the English Civil War, changed him from a bandleader to a poet, and changed his additional titles to being Proprietor of New Hampshire and Lord High Bailiff of Guernsey and Sark. I also changed him from the 8th duke to the 1st Duke, as duke creation really only got going again under Charles I, and really not until Charles II. I hope this is all acceptable. I found the anachronisms of the previous version distracting. (Now I am half-inclined to write an entire fake biography of this imaginary duke - I imagine he became Marquess of Omnium in 1641, when he became one of the moderate constitutionalist peers who switched over to supporting the king due to the overreach of the Long Parliament. He spent the Interregnum years on his estate, writing poetry and conducting his chemistry experiments, and generally avoided royalist conspiracy. At the Restoration, he was honored with the title of Duke of Omnium, and was given various honorary positions, but didn't participate too actively in the politics of the day...I am an enormous dork, I know. ) john k 13:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh ;) --Quiddity·(talk) 18:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Age, Silver Age

I was discussing elsewhere the use of "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" to refer to the Golden Age and Silver Age of Comic Books (and "Platinum" as well). Like most "ages" they're a bit fuzzily defined (depending on who you ask), which was the main point of the discussion... but given that these terms are widely used by comics historians BUT possibly imply a value judgement, would you say they're peacock terms or no? --HKMarks 00:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'd say

I'd say that you can use them as long as they refer to identifiable time periods and aren't just vague BS. If there really was an era that many people would recognize as being "Golden Age of XXX" instead of just, "A long, long time ago, in a distant land..." Smith Jones 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from project page

moved from project page by ESP

Except that reputation, how someone is or was considered, someone's 'standing' and its change with time, are interesting in themselves and they are not efficiently communicated simply by listing some facts of a person's life. To someone new to baseball, reciting Babe Ruth's stats does not say as much as a few peacock terms. They are useful aids to orientation in a subject, that is all.RuthieK 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock template

Can we squeeze a link to {{peacock}} in here somewhere? The Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words page has a link to {{weasel}} in the "Improving weasel-worded statements" section, perhaps we can do something similar? --Lethargy 19:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you posted this, and I concur, as I came to this page to look for the template :-) --plange 03:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canonical a peacock term?

In most contexts, is canonical not a term used to describe music which sounds similar to a canon? That's how I've most often heard it used, anyway, and that's the first definition listed at Dictionary.com.[1] -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It has other meanings depending on the context - see canon. Are you thinking of the "fixed collection of texts" 'canonical' (e.g. Western canon or Biblical canon) or the canon (fiction) usage? I'm most familiar with the fiction usage myself--in that case it's generally not a peacock term. However, describing something as "part of the Western canon" probably could be. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 03:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're mistaking "canon" for "cannon", Cielomobile. --NewtΨΦ 15:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical giants & peacocks.

I get the idea behind this policy, along with that of "weasel words". I see what they are meant to accomplish, and I'm glad that there aren't tens of thousands of articles running around pretending to be the most important this or the most influential that. But some topics are genuinely worth the term, and I think that using it truly does impart something.

First of all, Einstein really was one of the most influential and important physicists of all time. The "one of" is crucial, but so is the "most influential and important" part - that's something that I think the vast majority of people in the field, and outside of it, would agree with. Marco Polo genuinely is one of the most famous European explorers of the Far East. And Shō Shōken, even though none of you have heard of him, genuinely was one of the most influential native historians of the Ryūkyū Kingdom.

Secondly, when used discriminately enough, these terms can be extremely important. "Albert Einstein created the theory of relativity, which changed how scientists view the universe." Well, so did a lot of other people; Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, and whoever it was that invented string theory have also to a great extent "changed how scientists view the universe", each in their own ways. This sentence does not sufficiently convey that Einstein was, you know, Einstein.

"William Shakespeare wrote 38 plays and 154 sonnets, on a variety of subjects" or any variant of that which allows the facts to speak for themselves do not sufficiently convey what the current opening line on his article does: "William Shakespeare was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, as well as one of the greatest in Western literature, and the world's preeminent dramatist." Now, that sentence is almost entirely peacock terms, but it's all completely true, and is essential to imparting the extreme importance of Shakespeare.

Without using peacock terms - where appropriate - it becomes difficult for readers to be sure of the importance or significance of something. Proper scholastic writing uses peacock terms all the time - where appropriate. Now, we all know the Beatles, Einstein, and Shakespeare. But if I gave you Lafcadio Hearn or Edward Said without ever using words like "first to..", "significant", "influential" or "important", how would you, as the stereotypical naive reader, have any idea how crucial these two writers are to their respective fields?

Thanks for letting me share my two cents. Again, I think that having guidelines on these things, and keeping an eye on less responsible editors, are important. But bringing the axe down on all use of "peacock terms" is a mistake. LordAmeth 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Famous and Infamous and Legendary

Can we add these three terms as "peacock terms"? Any objections? When people use legendary I am never sure if the biography is a fable or if they mean that the person is real and also has fables written about them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

we can keep famous and infamous because they tell us something--but yes let's ban "legendary" as too ambiguous. Rjensen 20:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
What do they tell? I think "famous" and "infamous" are also empty. They are subjective, its better to say what accomplishments made a person notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into words to aviod

I proposed this by template but it was removed because "(these are distinct pages; no discussion on talk". Here is the discussion on talk. No they are not distinct pages. They both, actually with wessel words three, pages talk about words to avoid. From various reason, but these are still words and constructions to avoid. Actually "legendary" is in both of them. This only proves that having three separate pages will only lead to duplicity. Actually I think that all three pages are too wordy. This is a wikipedia guideline not an essay. Having only one page would make editors to shorten it. Splittin it to three later five, ten pages will only prolong the text.

Actually what made me to propose changes to MOS is my experience with Wikifiing pages. I went to pages with template "Wikify" and tried to improve them. But it is often impossible to say what is the reason of the tag. It only leads you to Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, that has so many pages it is impossible to read them all. Especially when they are changing. I do not expect that even administrators read them all. Can you expect occassional users to read them and follow them? What we need is much shorter MOS, that will contain all important information. There can be essays, but this binding guideline should be much much shorter.

BTW.: I do not really think that all these words should be avoided. For example saying Pele is considered to be greatest footballer of all times cannot be replaced by saying he scored so many goals, win wordl champs, etc. The reason for saying this is that when you ask somebody who is the greatest footballer of all times, he will very likely reply Pele. It does not have anything to do how good he really was, it has more to do with legend about Pele. So carefull with those lists of words to avoid. It is mostly true, but not always. --Jan.Smolik 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion to lump it all together is not acceptable. Each time I want to highlight a weasel word in the text, I use Template:Weasel. Each time I want to point out a peacock term, I use Template:Peacock. Each template refers to a specific page. There is no need to confuse our editors. The difference between weasel words, peacock terms, and other objectionable words is substantial. Keep the pages distinct. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As for peacock terms being unavoidable, in an example such as the one cited, there is also the option of quoting respected sources that assert Pele is the greatest. Lawikitejana 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikipedians are pretty clever"

"Wikipedians are pretty clever" sounds like a peacock term to me. 71.107.4.235 04:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versions of this in other languages?

I'm curious to know to what extent the non-English Wikipedias have some of these same guidelines; I'd urge that anyone who knows for sure that they do have them, please add the inter-wiki links to the appropriate pages. More than once, for example, I've wanted to be able to point someone to this topic when I have been editing the Spanish-language WP, but I don't know if the topic exists there or what it is called (obviously, I can't just translate it literally into Spanish and expect people to know what I'm talking about). Lawikitejana 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/v/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EAvoid_peacock_terms_9b63.html"