Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1
/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT TO WELL-MEANING WIKIPEDIANS

      • Can't understand what this rule is about, what for or why; it is non-sense to me. I am not even sure if I understand what the instructions are*** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.180.109 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Before contributing your inevitable witty objection concerning the stylistic or content choices made in this article contradicting its own message, please consider first if your objection would also apply to the Avoid Self Reference guideline's numerous references to itself.

If they would, it is recommended that you take a few minutes to meditate on the differences between project space and article space.

Have a nice day. -AceMyth 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"take a few minutes to meditate on the differences between project space and article space."
So are we to take it that your opinion is that the style guide need not live up to the standards of the rest of wikipedia? This would indeed explain some things about the style guide.
"Have a nice day."
Polite, and yet, condescending. A nice balance.
-- Doom (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (subsequent discussion)

It is quite important to note that this guideline is indeed in poor shape, style-wise; it is too long, there are too many examples, it rambles, and it confuses WP:NPOV and WP:VER. There are repeated comments on the talk page to the effect (that the guideline is not really helpful), irrespective of occasional joke edits to the article page. This has nothing to do with self-reference or self-contradiction, it is just that the article is in need of a major rewrite so that it has a decipherable meaning, a meaning that can be summed up coherently, in a few phrases, in sensible and pleasant english, which it does not do at present. — Newbyguesses - Talk 11:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Too long, too many examples - that's correct, and this guideline could be improved by trimming the rambling down to a few concise, powerful sentences. This current form is a stage of improvement from the way this guideline used to be, when it didn't bother justifying or explaining its point at all.
But the "repeated comments" that this guideline is not helpful or, as you put it, lacking in decipherable meaning, they're just absurd and they prove absolutely nothing. The guideline leaves no question as to what weasel words are. It defines what makes for a weasel word and explains how using them can sabotage Neutrality and Verifiability (which by no means constitutes a conflation of these two concepts). The criticisms you speak of do not stem from petty issues like form and presentation; their tone often betrays an outright rejection of the notion that there's something such as weasel words at all or that Wikipedia should admonish against their usage in any way. Usually when an opinion is oft-cited it is worthy of consideration, but even the most flattering sort of consideration I could muster for this position concludes it to be flat out wrong. I think most editors who have ever faced the challenge of striving to NPoV on a controversial article would agree with me. --AceMyth 03:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
With apologies to User:AceMyth, this editor did not check too many past versions of the project page before launching the current aspersions as to clarity. Much progress has undoubtedly been made over time.
Agreed also, many of the complaints on the talk page are flat out wrong (that undermines the current argument substantially, as you have pointed out). Also agreed, is it, then, <too long, too many examples - that's correct>. My suggestion, and I am toning it down, note the apology for my former intemperence, is keep most of the article, but drop all the examples, for now, and develop a better lot. It is better to trim now, find out what is supposedly being said. (Such a major rewrite is almost certainly beyond my capacities, yet, after some thought, I did draft as such in my user-space, still, no changes need to be made till more fruitful discussion develops, my work is offered since this page, a guideline, does a good job, but needs tweaking, and considering also, WP:Words to avoid. A rewrite, substantial, yet not changing any policy/guideline inflections, just shorter, clarified. This would take helpful input to achieve. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already started a re-write with your input in mind. The "Other problems" section is a tough nut to crack in this regard- I think the only way to simplify it would be to actually spread it out into a whole descriptive section rather than the current bullet point format (which is what currently forces the section into the paragraph-compressed-into-a-sentence-and-a-half style).
As for actually checking past versions of the page - Nobody ever does. Nobody ever should, either. That's what being bold is about. --AceMyth 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints

Shouldn't this page itself cite in order to avoid hypocrisy? Some people (me) would say that this page is written poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.86.97 (talk) 05:50, March 22, 2007 (UTC)

You must be the umpteenth person to come along and say "ho-ho, this article should apply to itself". That this demand makes no sense at all seems to take a backseat to the potential of saying something witty. --AceMyth 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The point would be that many of the phrases this article dismisses as "weasel words" reflect a very useful idiom, as evidenced by the fact that the article writers themselves have difficultly avoiding it. -- Doom (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Many mathematicians argue ...."
"A substantial minority of biologists believe that ..."
"A majority of academic sociologists find ..."
"The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here..."
Well, just from reading this talk page I can tell that last one is invalid, and there it is at the top of the neutrally-termed Weasel Words page; uncited and most obviously hypocritical. And from reading below, it seems there wasn't ever a vote taken to show this consensus. 155.94.62.221 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by golly. This page seems to have become a favorite target for well-meaning new contributors. Why don't you go bother the people who've been working on WP:A and tell them there was never a vote to indicate the so-called "consensus" on it and the policy text is not cross-referenced? I'm sure they'll be thrilled. --AceMyth 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, you see, it could have something to do with the fact that in this case wikipedia is going against the grain of hundreds of years of English usage. Look at any other encyclopedia and you'll find that these sorts of phrases are quite common there.
And I have to say, as rhetorical counter-moves go, rolling your eyes and saying "We've all heard that before" is pretty weak. Maybe you hear the objection a lot because there's some truth to it? Maybe if enough people object to a style guide article it doesn't really deserve to be considered a "consensual guidline"?
-- Doom (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was there EVER a consensus-indicating vote on this guideline?

I am placing this comment at the top here, but please note that I think this is a highly important matter for this guideline. As Doom points out just below this, the vote on whether the guideline was a good idea was very much divided (34 for, 24 against) and cannot be considered to indicate a consensus. So, I am wondering, was there ever a vote that established consensus for this guideline?

I've spent the past hour or so skimming through the history of the guideline and many times there were statements at the top of guideline saying things like "This guideline is disputed. See the talk page." Those comment were removed (by the original poster of this guideline, among at least one other) with essentially nothing in the edit summaries explaining why.

As best as I can tell, this guideline has always been controversial, a true consensus on it has never been established; as such, it cannot technically be considered a guideline nor part of the manual of style and would accordingly become unenforcable.

That is not to say that I disagree with the principles of this guideline, but as it is now, I have seen those principles horribly misapplied (as many of the comments on this page can attest to) such that I suspect that Wikipedia is made worse because of this guideline existing (in its current form).

If this guideline were to be rewritten in a much clearer and universally acceptable way that would establish consensus, then that is exactly how guidelines here are supposed to work. But people need to write the guideline in that consensus-based way before trying to enforce it. And in fact, precisely why demanding consensus is a good idea is because it makes sure that guidelines are well-written, and not like this unclear BS that we are all having to deal with now.

HalfDome 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. This guideline has always struck me as pretty obviously a good idea. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if anything we should be having a discussion about this, not a poll. I mean, what kind of argument could possibly be made against this guideline that wouldn't also compromise WP:A and WP:NPOV? --AceMyth 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are exactly right about needing a discussion for this. Wikipedia is based around building consensus through discussion, and thus far there has been nothing to indicate that such a consensus-building discussion took place, and, moreover, the poll that did take place indicated considerable disagreement about this guideline. As best as I can determine so far, some individuals just imposed this guideline on Wikipedia without building consensus first, and as you can note if you read through the comments below, it has resulted in all sorts of problems for editors (even though in principle and on the surface it may seem like an "obviously" good idea -- in current practice and in its current details it is much more problematic).

At some point I will get around to challenging the enforcability of this guideline that was established so counter to standard Wikipedia procedure. But no time at the moment...

HalfDome 02:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. This guideline has always struck me as pretty obviously a good idea.
Oh well, that settles it then.
At any rate, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and if anything we should be having a discussion about this, not a poll.
Because if you discuss it long enough, the opposition gets tired and wanders away, and then you can declare victory.
I mean, what kind of argument could possibly be made against this guideline that wouldn't also compromise WP:A and WP:NPOV?
Well, you might try looking through the aforementioned archives, and it just could be you'll find some.
Here's another for you. Starting with the "attribution" guidline, you will (at present) see the line Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Keeping that in mind, once again consider the example "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest novel." It may indeed be possible to provide references to this, but it's unlikely to be challenged by anyone who knows anything about literature, so what would be the point of doing it? One of the problems with this "avoid weasel words" guideline is that it empowers the ignorant to dive into an article on a subject they know nothing about, and dispute a line like this because it uses one of the Forbidden Phrases. This kind of activity is very little more than busy work, it has nothing to do with writing better articles. -- Doom (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I recommend looking into this "Archive" myself, there are two things you might notice immediately about it: (1) when a vote was taken on whether the article was really a good idea, it roughly split in half, and (2) ESP feels that it's now an "established part" of wikipedia. This is not anything like "consensus", this is more like one determined person avoiding changes to their personal territory. -- Doom 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at this archive. I didn't encounter any serious discussion about whether "avoiding weasel words" was a good idea, but I did encounter your proposal Wikipedia:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution and ESP dropping into the discussion page to announce that AWW was already an established part of Wikipedia so you should take your proposal and go away. I bet that sucked.
I still think that this is a good guideline, though. For all this defending of personal territory, I have stumbled upon this page a few months ago and brutalised it with edits, with most edits having remained intact since, so it's not like AWW has been doomed to stagnation. I think it reflects a common pitfall in writing that often tempts people to take advantage of it and push POV, and that it's very useful to have a clear term and guideline to call it out. But I'm not representative of anything, so if you think there should be a discussion about this go ahead and open one. Just make sure to make a decent effort to spread the word so we don't end up with fifteen people going "for" and "against", because that isn't representative of anything, either. --AceMyth 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I bet that sucked. Sure. That wasn't the only instance of it either: my first tries were hacking on the "avoid weasel words" page itself: all edits instantly reverted by User:EvanProdromou (who in those days went by his initials, "ESP"). Your edits have no doubt been more stable for a number of reasons (not the least of which is that "ESP" has wandered away), and the current version of this article is somewhat improved (I'm happy to see that the list of Forbidden Phrases has gone away). I've still got major problems with it, and I suspect that it's essentially ill-conceived, however well-intentioned. I do understand that some people hide POV by using vague references: just because an idiom can be misused, doesn't mean it should be prohibited. -- Doom (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Probably"

Is "probably" (and its siblings, "likely", etc) a weasel word? As in, "The '666' carved on Mercedes' forehead is a probable reference to the biblical Number of the Beast", for example. Clayhalliwell 23:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, without exception. Your example should just give a hyperlink to 666, so the reader can decide themself on possible references made by the carving. Ramir 05:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Which "people once thought"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.17 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probably the most confusing and annoying Wikipedia rule

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

I see the biggest problem in people only seeing the "letter" of this, and not the "spirit". It's not about the words, folks, it's about what's being done with those words. So, don't go looking for "weasel words", but for "weasel tactics". --jae 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. About time someone brought this up. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Seriously this is the most important rule in WP. It is a quantifiable way of nailing down people that try to avoid the POV rule and use WP to advance their world-view. WP is starting to become a joke for exactly that reason. [1], [2],[3],[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.83.104 (talk) 22:05, February 23, 2007 (UTC)

"Nailing down"... like someone to a cross, this sounds like. The article says, right there at the start: However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. "Nailing down" and "quantifiable way" (quantifiable? Do you, Mr (or Ms?) Anonymous, even know what that means?) doesn't sound like there's room for exceptions. Oh, and why not signed? Are you chicken? -- jae 01:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and your first link to PA... care to show me where there's a weasel word? Neither does the Google link have anything to do with "weasel words". People consider WP to be a joke for all kinds of reasons (this very guideline can be one of them... or rather, the "spirit" that it expresses). -- jae 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting take. Of all the reasons I've heard that anyone has EVER taken WP for joke, the spirit of being too clear about what constitutes "weasel wording" is not one. (BTW, asking if someone is "chicken" is culturally off-base here, IMO. Think what you want, but at least you could use more class when you accuse someone.)
My take on that spirit: "The following are examples of words and phrases that signal a LIKELY case of weasel tactics: <various examples given on the article page>". The specific words & phrases are clear warnings, not definitive proof: prima facie evidence, as it were. Just as using the passive voice is a warning about weak or unattributed writing, not definitive proof. Jmacwiki (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weak exceptions

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

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

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


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

[edit] About the tag

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

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

Very good point. There are way too many drive by-taggings out there, and there is virtually no pressure on taggers to motivate their actions. Tags should be a last resort for very problematic statements after they have been brought up for discussion. As it is now, even experienced and otherwise sensible editors are adding tags as a way of asserting their opinion in article space.
Peter Isotalo 11:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Post above tagged for attention and response --AceMyth 01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INCORRECT DEFINITION of "Weasel Words"!!!???

I'm baffled by this article, it does not relate any definition of "weasel words" I've ever seen before.

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

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

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

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

This isn't the article namespace. The meanings of "verification", "neutral point of view", "fancruft" and many other terms which have grown into use in Wikipedia differ from their classic meanings, and some are even neologisms. This doesn't mean they don't belong. --AceMyth 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Merriam Webster and The American Heritage dictionary both define weasel word as something like "a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position." This is consistent with the meaning of the term in the article, and not in your book. As for "loaded language," that's more WP:PEACOCK. (Isn't it quite the coincidence that both the WP policies/guidelines that refer to animals are related to each other?). --YbborTalkSurvey! 01:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
AceMyth, you're generally right-on on this page defending the integrity of what is an important guideline. However, it could use a better name. If it were a neolgism it might be vague, but at least it wouldn't be misleading (confusing). "Differing from their classic meanings" should itself be held to some standard, unless of course the usage arises organically. Assuming that's not what happened here (it seems not to be), do the posters who pointed out the misuse have any BETTER IDEAS for a name? Maybe "vague or anonymous attribution". --will (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last two paragraphs

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

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

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

[edit] Copypasted from article

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

I'll assume good faith here and judge this comment and edit (which contained the audacity of tagging this very guideline as "compromised by weasel words", bordering on a blatant infraction of WP:POINT) the result of excessive pedantry rather than, well, bad faith. This being a guideline, it does not have to conform to the same confines as article space. But even letting that up, is anyone arguing that this is not actually the case? That "clearly" is not often used to slap together a valid chain of reasoning in written form? Clearly, that last section about not blindly demanding references for blatantly obvious things has been conveniently ignored here. --AceMyth 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope we are past this, but the complaint arises from a true difference between this project page and virtually all other WP project pages, something that seems to have escaped the attention of several editors here: This is not an article ABOUT weasel words, for the interested encyclopedia reader. It is a statement of WP policy, a core principle for WP's existence. It is thus not subject to POV, stylistic, or other constraints. Period. If readers collectively feel that this or other fundamental policies are inappropriate, they must abandon WP. Vote with their feet, so to speak. Or mice, in this case. Jmacwiki (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, user:Jmacwiki, you replied to a post which was not quite one year old! Yes, I think we are past this, if by this you mean just slapping a tag on this guideline, or indeed on any article in mainspace. Editing of this page by thoughtful editors is best practice, per WP:BOLD, and changes to guidelines, which reflect clearer statements of Policies and guidelines, are brought about through discussion on the discussion page.
This page has undergone quite a few changes since May 2007, and I hope it will go through some more, though there is no need, anywhere, for drive-by tagging. Thanks for your refreshing viewpoint! Newbyguesses - Talk 01:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I considered carefully whether to reply to a 9-month-old post. But there seemed to be enough challenging commentary throughout the talk page that I felt the point was worth stating. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Offhanded references to the sky being often-blue will not necessarily demand a citation"

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

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

[edit] The first sentence is way too wordy and confusing

Somebody please shorten it so it's easily understood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.131.87 (talk) 18:11, June 12, 2007 (UTC)

Either this guy is a noob, or the article is hypocritical... --Luigifan 18:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh for goodness' sake. As is discernible from this talk page, apparently EVERYTHING that will EVER be written in this guideline is hypocritical self-contradiction, regardless of technicalities such as what's usually meant by "hypocrisy" or what a contradiction is. Look at me now, having to defend its right to contain participial phrases. We have soared to a new height of pedantry, gentlemen. --AceMyth 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yankees

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

[edit] Complaint

Major changes to the project page require discussion on the talk page first.

So, where is your explanation of your massive recent deletion? `'Miikka 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that was me. My explanation is that the previous version was written in a tone that I personally was rather fond of but frequent visitors to the guideline seemed to regard as an exercise in reading comprehension. I believe all the important content and points have been retained in this new rewrite, but hey, if you feel that some important element of the text has gone amiss, hit the shiny edit button. --AceMyth 21:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

suffering from a massive infestation of weasel words

There are more — a major rewrite is required. Newbyguesses - Talk 11:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a tag. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the tag, as the guideline is mostly past this requested rewrite, and as far as I understand User:Newbyguesses agrees that if not complete, this rewrite is at least going in the right direction. So sure, more work is always welcome, but I don't think we need a tag (anymore). --AceMyth 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This [5] should show the differences in versions from 30 June to 7 July 2007, with 45 intermediates not shown. Quite a rewrite, and going in the right direction, although any improvements by a bold editor welcomed, and the talk page is available to all. Removing the tag was quite justified,Newbyguesses - Talk 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

A while back on the talk page, someone asked if there was ever a poll that showed consensus. I am making one Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words/Consensus straw poll. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link [6] to the post referred to, by User:HalfDome, from 17 March 07. FYI, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiding the tag when viewing the webpage

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

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

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

[edit] Definition too specific

The article has improved in style since I saw it last. Yet, it is still failing to define and describe the phenomenon in its breadth and generality. A couple of examples of mine were meant to illustrate that somewhat, but those were all deleted. So here are some:

  • Montreal is probably the most beautiful place in the world.
  • Research by X [1] suggests that 84.67% of American scientists believe in Truth.
  • The new legislation was met with widespread protest [1][2][3].
  • Because of poor organization and skill [1][2], the army of Zloj was defeated.

(the numbers in brackets [1] [etc.] are hypothetical references to relevant authoritative sources.) These are examples of weasel phrases, yet none of them fit the description given by the article now. Ramir 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If the definition of what a "Weasel Word" is supposed to be should be more encompassing than it's now, having a tree-fest of examples illustrating every single possible infraction and completely obscuring the forest in the process would hardly be a good solution. Can you come up with a solid broader definition of the type of fault in a text you're aiming for here? "Weasel Word" will hardly be useful to anybody as a catch-all term for any conceivable fault of descriptive writing that could be linked to typical "culprit" words (to name a few which factor strongly in your examples: Sloppy, nonspecific descriptions; shameless fairness of tone violations; opinion baldly stated as fact; sources misrepresented and taken out of context...) --AceMyth 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a general definition like:
“In Wikipedia, a weasel word is any word, clause or implication that attempts to preserve the formal truth or the appearance of credibility of a statement that is non-neutral, controversial, or plainly false on its own; yet does not add to the specificity or clarity of the statement.”
I know, such style is inappropriate for a popular explanation, but such are rigid definitions. It could be shortened to “an uninformative word or phrase that is appended to a statement in an attempt to save the latter from rightful erasure.” Ramir 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I like that. Do add that in. --AceMyth 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In time I will, unless objections arise. I see the need to emphasise that some weasel words are merely implications, like in the third and fourth of examples above. The bias or falsity of statements is easily exposed by destructuring the sentences; when used as a subordinate clause, a phrase seems more innocent and verified to most readers. Consider:
  • The army of Zloj was untrained and poorly organised. These were the reasons of its defeat.
This is outright first-hand POV that has no place in Wikipedia in any form; it cannot possibly be “verified” by any sort of reference. Yet, these very two statements appear convincing and verifiable (indeed, with “authoritative sources”) to many, when written as a compound sentence. So, in this example the “weasel word” is not even a single word, but a syntactic construction that adds no information yet making a statement appear as less of a POV/lie. Ramir
The third example uses an extremely flexible quantity specifier (“widespread”, which ranges from two persons to the entire population), also implying that the exact cause of the allegedly widespread protest was the legislation in question (while usually one would be an excuse or a “spark” for a more general political campaign.) Ramir
I am tempted to give such examples in the article. About seven will be enough; and only one needs to cover the “many-people-think” type of weasel words, since it is straightforward in contrast to the other kinds that I am trying to expose (weasel-syntax, weasel-causality-words, weasel-references, weasel-implications). So I will wait for further approval/critique before I edit. Ramir 22:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding some worthwhile examples is a good idea. The draft above is also quite suitable for addition to the lead section, nothing wrong with the tone. These explanatory ideas also, of weasel-syntax, etc. represent an interesting approach.
A weasel word sucks the meaning out of the words around it - (Stewart Chapman Chaplin, 1900). Well, they suck the meaning out of a discussion, or out of a particular section of text.
In the locus classicus, one could identify a particular weasel word, and the particular word whose meaning is sucked out (for instance, voluntary negated the meaning of universal in a political phrase of Woodrow Wilson's criticized by Roosevelt in 1916 as an example of weasel words). But in the general case, as user:Ramir points out, it might be a syntactical construction, or an implication, or the order of certain words or syllables which creates ambiguities. Use of "a weasel word" differs from using "weasel words", and from weasel-wording, or weasel-wordiness. The "definition" of weaseling has certainly changed over a century, Newbyguesses - Talk 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, we do not need to provide a definition as such, this is not mainspace. And the backstop is WP:V. In cases where weasel words are an impediment to verifiability, they need to be re-written, and re-written until the text satisfies WP:V (Also WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). u:Newbyguesses - Talk 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Your quote from Chapman is good: both clear and authoritative. It supports my initial concern: the article in its present version does not describe the issue adequately. Ramir 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I suggest these assertions:
  • Beyond exception, weasel words are unacceptable in a somber, scientific-style publication like Wikipedia, since their purpose (or their effect, at least) is the obscuration of facts and promotion of subconscious (alogical, meaningless) attitudes.
    • Attitudes like those expressed in Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words are intellectually blunt. Their lack of consistency should be exposed and ridiculed. (This I can do easily.)
  • One should look beyond examples and definitions, and recognize the general phenomenon of “weaselspeak”; that weasel words are mere manifestations of it; and that they have elusive substitutes more difficult to notice. It is here, towards the article’s end, where I would give examples of the more subtle weasel-wording, like the third and fourth of my examples above.
Ramir 12:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Correction- That should be Stewart Chaplin, not Chapman, writing in 1900 in The Century Magazine according to the article Weasel word, my mistake. What might be really helpful, is to supply some examples which illustrate techniques and phrasing that editors can use to replace passages of poor wording, if possible. This page is after all a part of the Manual of Style. Guidance on how to write better articles is what is required, so, continue to refine these ideas and, when ready, be bold.Newbyguesses - Talk 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding one obfuscation to another

In the "Other examples" section under the subsection "convoluted syntax":
Citing the following sentence as an example of obfuscation the editor has added another obfuscation, that of which is the "strange little participial phrase". Does he presume that the reader instantly knows which is the participial phrase?

"Though not universally, squares are widely regarded as having an even number of sides that has been conjectured by experts in the field to be approximately four" wraps the key point in layers of syntactic obfuscation, leaving it to be harvested out of a strange little participial phrase by the reader".

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

[edit] Interaction between WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:WEASEL

Take something controversial, like Fahrenheit 9/11. Which is better?

  1. "Many conservatives criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to thirty examples) or "A, B, C, ..., BB, CC, and DD criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to thirty critics)
  2. "Conservative A and conservative B criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to the two)
  3. "Many conservatives criticized the movie for inaccuracy." (cite to the same two examples)

(1) violates WP:NOT and WP:WEIGHT. (2) violates WP:NPOV by falsely implying that only a couple of people criticized a widely-criticized movie. (3) violates WP:WEASEL, but it is clearly the best option. Yet many editors are using WP:WEASEL to turn accurate sentences like (3) into inaccurate sentences like (2). This hurts the encyclopedia. How can we clarify WP:WEASEL to prevent this problem? THF 00:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

In a case where many critics or people (up to fifty percent) approved the movie and many (up to fifty percent) disapproved of it - How about - (4) Opinion was divided on the movie, some (conservative) critics said it was inaccurate [ref] while others found it convincing.[ref] . All material must satisfy WP:V for starters. It is also correct though to point out that the NPOV policy, WEIGHT and NOT all apply in different aspects of each particular case, which requires finding fresh ways to express matters in each particular case. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In this case, conservative opinion wasn't divided. It was pretty close to unanimously disapproving. (Not a big surprise: the movie was intentionally partisan.) Again, though, editors are using WP:WEASEL to object to saying this obvious point. I'd like to find or add language in WP:WEASEL that discourages overaggressive use that ends up violating other policies. THF 09:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, not sure what could be done there in that article. Seems that, if there is a section called "Controversy" in any article, there will be a controversy about it! The whole piece could be restated (rewritten) - Moore stated his intentions of creating a partisan or radical document, and this was reacted to by critics partial to the status quo with disdain. Or why not call the section "Reactions"? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge templates: exception, or in need of correction?

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

[edit] "many," "some," "a large number of,"

I have the impression that these three terms and expressions are also, as used by Wikpedians, Weasel words. Am I correct? Should this Project page be edited accordingly?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The page contradicts itself" complaint #2748c

"As part of the Manual of Style, this page is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard"

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

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

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

[edit] Applicable even to quotes?

I was wondering if this guideline is applicable even to quotes from third party sources? There's an instance of its use on the Firefox page, as in:

On the other hand, LWN also notes that "by some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware". [weasel word sentence]

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

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

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


[edit] First section redraft

Propose:

Weasel words is a term used in Wikipedia (and generally, see Weasel words) to refer to unspecific disclaimers attached to what otherwise would be claimed statements of fact in order to turn them into true statements of opinion. Usually, weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc.. Additional "weasel" words sometimes allow a statement to be implied when it is no truer than its inverse and sometimes imply that the statement is more contraversial than it is. The problem with weasel-worded statements isn't that they are false; the problem is that they are chosen to imply something which they do not say.

For example, an editor might preface the statement "Montreal is the best city in the world" with a disclaimer: "some people say that Montreal is the best city in the world". This is not untrue: some people do say that Montreal is the best city in the world. The problem is that the reverse is true as well (some people say Montreal is the worst city in the world), and it is thus easy to write a misinformative, slanted article composed of nothing but 'facts' like these, using Wikipedia to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda. All it takes is for somebody to add "Critics have asserted that..." to a statement, and there is a danger that the casual reader will take their word for it. Equally "some people claim that The beatles were popular" unnecesarily raises a (false) question about something which is better without the preface, and expresses a tacit counter POV.

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

any views?

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

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

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

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

"Most scientists accept the theory of evolution."

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Citation Example in Error

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

[edit] most likely

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

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

[edit] First sentence

Does not make easy sense to me. "...true statements of opinion"? I believe I understand the intended meaning, but would somebody please clarify so I can be sure? Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

accurate statement of opinion. --BozMo talk 12:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Weasel-inline" tag now reads "Attribution needed"?

This makes things confusing when one is trying to point to a weasel word or phrase that is not looking for a source to be attributed to (e.g. "probably", "most likely", "usually" et al).

71.241.83.238 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This has apparently been fixed. DO NOT MERGE weasel words with attribution needed!!! 68.101.130.214 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative Term

I had not seen much discussion of this, so I thought I might introduce a subsection.

The phrase "weasel words" is inherently pejorative, in most english-speaking societies, and this connotation is seldom unintended when one denounces the text of an absent author to a present audience. I would suggest finding a more suitable term.

While some contributors and editors of the Wikipedia may, in truth, make intentional use of ambiguous language - be it due to personal bias, in order to gloss over gaps in knowledge or intellectual rigor, or out of stylistic habit; to sound a little more 'encyclopedia-like', in bad faith, or due to the pure evil of their utterly twisted and irredeemable character - I suspect that in the great majority of cases, ambiguous language appears in the Wikipedia unintentionally. Furthermore, I suspect that it is often beside the point, when not impossible, to attempt to demonstrate that a given ambiguity was or wasn't used intentionally.

Unfortunately, to say that a fellow editor's work is using "weasel words" is to accuse him of adding to or editing the wikipedia in bad faith. Given that actual weasels do not use words, it is very difficult to escape the notion that the original, insulting connotation is intended. It is difficult enough to feel that any criticism of one's work is made in good faith; when such criticism is in the form of an accusation of bad faith on one's own part, it seems to me remarkably predictable that disputes and bad feelings would frequently arise. And human nature is such that many hearts bearing animus would absolutely delight in expressing it in a manner that evaded direct reproach and censure - by finding and thus labelling ambiguous usages, for instance - which surely complicates the matter.

In my opinion, a community cannot 're-brand' a phrase without either failing, or intensifying the degree of any 'insider' vs. 'outsider' effect. Thus I do not believe that an attempt to explain that the phrase "weasel words" somehow 'means' something different in the Wikipedia would be particularly fruitful in a tasty-fruit sort of way.

69.49.44.11 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right. The expression "weasel word" is indeed pejorative, and unfortunately for that reason may be invoked incorrectly in cases such as generalizations or the passive voice, to name just two. Perhaps you might look at weasel word and see whether that article supplies some answers (or indeed you might contribute to it to improve it). Dieter Simon (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A good point. Perhaps "weasel words" is such a delicious insult to an editor with an opposing POV that it gets used when a simple suggestion for a more focused writing style would have been more appropriate. Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, is there a corresponding "this article needs a more focused writing style" tag? Something more specific than "cleanup" and less loaded than "WW". Some of the WW cases would still apply, though not all: There really is a difference between "Most apples are red" and "Most religious zealots are hypocrites". Notice that the project page's 1st para. says, "the problem is that [WW] are chosen to imply something which they do not say" [emph. added]. This attributed motive seems to define "WW". That's why accusing someone of WW is (justly) pejorative. That motive is probably absent in the apples example, even though it uses the same example word and the same syntax as the zealots example. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There does not appear to be an alternative term. If there were, I imagine this discussion would have arisen quite promptly: requiring the editor to choose between imputing a motive, or not, rather highlights the pejorative interpretation of 'weasel words'; it become explicit and unavoidable.
For me, the question would be whether the pejorative aspect of the term really contributes anything of value, regardless of how weaselly the words are. I think that the essay Don't "call a spade a spade" and the Dealing with bad faith section of the Assume good faith guideline page argue that it does not. The About good faith section of that guideline explicitly opines that: "[i]t is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious."
Just to be clear, I think that the existence of the page Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is fine. We should all seek to avoid using weasel words. What I'm thinking about are the consequences of taking the phrase (in a tag, for instance) and applying it to another person's contribution. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent reasoning. The "Assume good faith" guideline seems to require that we edit the last sentence of the first para. to remove the "are chosen to" language. Do we have a consensus here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacwiki (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


<-- I was bold. Please continue this discussion, and update the project page as necessary, if the wording introduced with this edit still needs work. I hope it addresses the concerns expressed here, which i read through before editing. Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 17:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel word

We should not forget there is a mainspace article Weasel word. Please try make that the main article rather than this much too prescriptive, regimentative and intrusive project page. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it the other day. My first reaction was "oh great, the disease is spreading": The term "weasel words" is essentially a piece of jargon made up by Evan Prodromou: it's a very specific meaning, a new definition attached to a piece of common slang. It did not exist before he made it up, and now it deserves a wikipedia entry? Can I write some articles about terms that I've made up? (How about if I write articles about terms a friend of mine made up?). -- Doom (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this will make what I mean a little clearer: when someone who is not a "wikipedian" says "weasel words" they're talking about a wide range of idioms: http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/semant4.htm
This article is really about avoiding "vague attribution", which is at best a small sub-set of things that might be termed "weasel words". -- Doom (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just looked at the mainspace article Weasel word again, and it's much better than I thought at first glance -- it's certainly not just using "weasel word" as a pejorative synonym for "vague attribution". -- Doom (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words in source

What happens if the source says things like, "Some people think X"? In that case, is it acceptable to write, "Some people think X" in a Wikipedia article? Should I write, "According to Y, some people think X," where Y is the author of the source? Q0 (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it depends whether the source is a 'reliable source'. If a distinguished professor in the subject reckons "some people think" something, he is probably more trustworthy than an anonymous Wikipedia editor. It would still be better to find another source though! Cop 663 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have to take a hard look at the statement on its own merits, and in its own context, and largely treat them with the same distrust you would any weasel-like words. The key problem here is when a statement is qualified in such a way that it seems to say more than it actually does. Take the case of the Apiloca people of Borneo.
  • If the Distinguished Professor is saying something like "some Apiloca fear Cameras," he hasn't really said something any more informative, true or untrue than if anyone had said it. For, surely, some Distinguished Professors fear Cameras, as well.
  • If what he is saying is that "many Apiloca fear Cameras," then that is perhaps more informative, but not as informative as it seems. We have no idea how many Apiloca he considers to be 'many'. (Nor, for that matter, any understanding of the degree or significance of the fear.)
  • If he has been banned from ever returning to Borneo by a million-signature petition, than perhaps it is a large majority of the Apiloca. On the other hand, if he is a specialist in the phobias of the peoples of Borneo, then it could be a peculiar theme amongst those Apiloca who suffer from anxiety disorders.
What he is offering is not a fact, but a characterization; this can certainly inform our beliefs, but it is very important that it not be treated as a fact, or taken out of context.
So, in other words, I think it would be very important to directly mention the source and context.
  • "In his book, 'How I Lost Ten Thousand Dollars Worth of The University's Camera Equipment', the Distinguished Professor claims that that many of the Apiloca fear Cameras, a view shared by Tourist, the author of 'Well They Took Away My Polaroids, Didn't They'."
— 69.49.44.11 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] square

i love the 'square' part of this article, i really do. f**king hilarious :D keep up the good work wikipedians, haha :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.34.211.145 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The greatest team in the world

This statement about the yankees seems is not objective by any measure. There is no universally accepted standard for deeming a team "the greatest in the world". While I did not remove it, I believe it should be removed. 74.47.21.87 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Award-Winning"

It seems like half the articles that are about musicians, and far too many other artists and entertainers, start off their articles with "award-winning" before their job title. This may be true, but I always roll my eyes. Of course it's fans who originate articles about musicians, if not the musicians themselves. And of course they want to elevate themselves with some kind of modifier before their job title.

Naturally the awards can be documented, but the content is irrelevant. Generally anyone who meets the notability guidelines will have won some award somewhere that can be documented. It's nearly comparable to calling them a "food-eating" person. At any rate it's not encyclopedic, it's more like something you hear talk show host say and so I submit that "award-winning" is a weasel word.

Of course where major awards can be documented, they deserve a mention, but in the opening sentence "award-winning" reads like "really great!" Youdontsmellbad (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)