Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words

Supporters of "avoid weasel terms" include:

• Martin (but at least a weasely statement is better than an outright POV violation).
• User:Ruhrjung (as a rule with exceptions, or course)
• DanKeshet (Wikipedia is littered with personal opinions masked as common knowledge)...
• UtherSRG (but I don't like the term 'weasel terms')
• Rossami

Opponents of "avoid weasel terms" include:

• NetEsq (overly broad)
• kwertii (implementation would make most articles tedious and awkward)
• JDR (Wikipedia lacks [and, sometimes, contradicts] common neutral knowledge represented by general public opinions)
• doom (I agree, this is overly broad: "weasel" words are good to describe a consensus view, e.g. "War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest work." A god-like "neutral" POV is an excellent goal, but will never be perfectly achieved.)
• Dieter Simon (All "factual" articles sooner or later manifest some kind of "weaseling" [an awful expression]. "In perhaps the best-known example of cryptanalysts...", "the average temperature in winter in the British Isles...", "the famous description of the shield of Achilles...is generally regarded...", you could almost have a bet on it that you can find examples such as this in any longer piece of prose and even in some short ones. So what is the problem? Are you going to hold the many opinion-holders down the ages to it to quote who first said what? It cannot be avoided.) --Dieter Simon 01:41, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

I wanted to point out that attaching a name to an opinion is different from citing your sources. Consider this:

Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy

Versus this:

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison argued in the Clay Shaw case that the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Versus this:

Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (People vs. Clay Shaw, 1967, III, ii, 37-45)

One axis is that of citing sources; the other is that of naming opinions. They're not really the same thing. -- ESP 00:42 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

So what are we meant to do when something really is "widely believed"? Attaching one name to a widely held opinion seems a worse violation of NPOV (because it draws undue attention to that one name) than just leaving it at "widely believed" would. I'm thinking of statements such as "Brahms is widely considered one of the greatest of all classical composers". --Camembert

Two different ways to deal with this. If the real point of the sentence is discussing the wide belief, then, sure, leave it in. "It was widely believed at Copernicus's time that the sun revolved around the Earth."

If the point of the sentence is Brahms himself, and not the belief, then talk about Brahms: "Brahms is one of the greatest classical composers." (But also see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.) There's no point hedging on Brahms's greatness if it really isn't questioned. If it's not a widely accepted fact, the next editor through will change it -- not to worry!

(But the point is that Brahms greatness is questioned (Benjamin Britten thought he was lousy, for example). It isn't an indisputable fact that Brahms is a great composer, but it is an indisputable fact that he's widely considered to be one. --Camembert)

Excellent example. All in all, I'd say to leave out peacock terms like "one of the greatest" or "very important" or whatever. They're subjective and they don't really tell. ESP

If there's a controversy worth discussing -- like, say, there's a minority that claims that Brahms is in fact not all he's cracked up to be -- concentrate on that: "Music historian Arnold Fahrquardt has claimed that Brahms' music was in fact written by his pupils, and that Brahms had no musical ability whatsoever."

(Great if possible, but a source for such an opinion isn't always available, and in any case, you still have to somehow say that this is a minority opinion (see, for example, the last paragraph of Symphony No. 7 (Beethoven)). --Camembert)

Agreed. Sometimes there's no particular source. You can characterize the people that hold the opinion, like "Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah." Other times there's no cohesive group or person that holds the opinion: "Some people say dogs are the best pet; other people prefer cats". But an unsourced opinion is mostly hearsay, and should be avoided if possible. ESP

What if you're not sure what is a majority opinion? I can cite a lot of different people who wonder if Dubya is functionally illiterate, and only reads scripts from his speech-writers (and messes those up). I can cite Moore, and a list of others, do you really want huge lists in articles? Or should we say something like: Numerous critics, for example Moore in _title_, say X is Y. So that we've pinned down a specific example (or two?) to verify a wider ranging statement?
~ender 2003-08-17 13:19:MST

The point is not to forbid particular words or phrases; the point is to use these phrases as flags that signal unsubstantiated hearsay or personal bias. -- ESP 01:30 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I don't think we really disagree about the substance of the matter, I'm just a bit bothered that the page doesn't even hint that these sorts of phrases are sometimes useful and OK. Possibly it could do with a couple of counter-examples to show that such phrases can serve a purpose (I'd add some myself, but I'm feeling very lazy). --Camembert

Well, of course, there is an exception to every rule -- and especially rules of thumb like this one. I think in the last paragraph I give some ideas about what to do with weasel words. Weasel words camouflage hearsay or bias, and should be given extra attention because of this. They should be removed if possible, and left alone if not. -- ESP 03:20 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, now I've slept on it, I don't seem to have so much of a problem with this any more (not that I had massive problems with it before). As a rule of thumb, I think it's a good one. --Camembert

---

Can we get some help on Jean-Marie Le Pen? The neutrality of the article is disputed, and the use of weasel terms doesn't seem to help. -- Miguel

It's a bit painful. Le Pen has basically been criticized by political leaders and journalists in Europe and the United States - basically anybody who mentions him, except for the far rightists, is highly critical. No major French political leader outside of his party (and the Megretist spin-off) wants to have anything to do with him.

---

To return to the discussion from a month ago (when I actually missed it totally, despite having been interested ;-):

I think this advice is a very important advice (although not neccessarily given its optimal wording yet), which ought to be stressed in the NPOV-policy.

But at the same time I would like to give an example where I myself (for the moment at least) believe a phrase of this style being appropriate. See: Stauning for an article on a Danish politician. In its current version it ends with the statement: There are many reasons to consider him the greatest figure in 20th century Danish politics.

I agree, that's also a problematic example. The article ends with these words? Then simply say something like For the reasons cited in this article, many in Denmark consider him... - Miguel

Being a politician, he was of course not un-controversial. And some of his political adversaries (to which I belong, sort of, altough I only work in Denmark without the right to vote) can of course, for pure prestige, not really agree. But factually this man is widely recognized among his fellow country-men as the greatest (or one of the very greatest) since Denmark became a democracy, and politicians became worth considering.

And in my opinion, it is of great importance for non-Danes (as myself - who lack a great deal of the contextual knowledge the Danes have) to get this kind of clues. You don't want to litter your memory with all kind of second- and third-rank personalities when your memory is limited.

I would appreciate comments.

;-))

--Ruhrjung 21:15, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Is weasel terms really a good term?

Suddenly one day, ...today to be precise, I discovered the policy against "weasel terms", exemplified as

• Some people say/believe...
• It has been said that...
• Some would say...

For long these kind of expressions has been one of my main points of critics against the Wikipedia project, and of course I can blame myself for my bad command of English and my too superficial study of Wikipedia policies, that I in several months haven't understood that my critic actually "is" answered in Wikipedia-policies, but on the other hand it turns out from the what-links-here list that at least the page on "weasel terms" is unknown by most wikipedians.

A few question raise from this:

• is the term really good?
• is this issue really considered important by other wikipedians, or is it a policy which is made and accepted in order to be put in the drawer and forgotten?
• could something be done to emphasize this misconception of NPOV?
• should something be done?

--Ruhrjung 19:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How are you going to present views that differ from your own on controversial subjects without doing this? I can see wanting to put exactly who holds the opposing point of view "Adherents of the pre-1956 Georgia flag say......" and "Some homeless advocates say.........." rather than just "Some people say......" But not sure how you can present multiple point of views without saying that someone said them.Ark30inf 19:32, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, your question actually highlights another of my points of critic against Wikipedia customs. If I hadn't hid Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms by [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms|policy against "weasel terms"]], I think the probability for you reading that Wikipedia policy page would have increased. Mea culpa!

...now, see what the page has to say first, then we can discuss the solution the page proposes. :-)

--Ruhrjung 20:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I admit doing just a quick run through of the page before commenting and missed the meat of it. That itself might be a problem, either with me, the page, or both. I probably would not have missed it if the article had stated it right off the bat....."Try to attribute statements of opinion to a specific source such as "Joe said..." rather than using 'weasel words' like "Some say.....". That will solve the problem with the page (but perhaps not the problem with me scanning and then commenting).Ark30inf 21:05, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion (which IMHO should probably be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_terms), I think the neagative cononations of 'weasel terms' should be avoided, even though (in general) we want people to avoid using those terms.

How about: Ambiguous phrasing | Ambiguous citing | Ambiguous sources?

~ender 2003-08-17 14:50:MST

Or maybe just Wikipedia:Avoid vagueness. -- Wapcaplet 02:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

---

The following is now very much out of context as it was meant to answer some of the anti-hype on the meta page, and so doesn't really mean much where it is. It would have been much better to move the whole lot over to this site, so everyone can see the intention behind this article. Dieter Simon 00:28, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is all well and good to make a bald statement like that and recommend to "find some evidence that backs up the statement...", etc., but I am afraid it is good procedure in that encyclopedias use anonymous controversialists. Take the Oxford Companion to the English Language in one of its paragraphs in the article on Phrasal verbs: "Grammarians have adopted two main positions with regard to the nature and use of phrasal verbs: (1)... (2)..." There is no mention whatsoever who these grammarians are, and why should there be? If there is a general acknowledgement that there are two or more sides to an argument then that should suffice. This happens often enough, especially if controversies stretch back in time, and it is impossible to find the original speaker. I am sorry, if this is an example of "weasel words" then I am all for it. :) --Dieter Simon 00:04, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hear, hear! There's no weaseling going on when one is fairly attributing a widely held view to a class a people, such as grammarians in the example above. It's not weasling even to write "some grammarians say," so long as it's true and the "some" represents a significant faction. 168... 07:03, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Two main positions" that's pretty balanced and complete. "Some people still believe that the Earth is flat." this could be viewed as fact.

This is not exactly the same as "Jacques Chirac is a communist" such an assertion need serious sources and serious arguments even if you wrote "Some people think that Jacques Chirac is a communist". Of course the problem appear only when the subject is controversial nobody will Discuss "Hitler was Nazi" and nobody will try to write "According too some Hitler was Nazi" to fit NPOV policy. Ericd 07:29, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

How about replacing "avoid weasel terms" by "weaseling out of POV is not NPOV"? -- Miguel

I think this is a very constructive suggestion. It has the fringe benefit of being extensible to cover other techniques such as the weasel passive (mistakes were made...) well described in the existing literature. A logo of a wall-mounted weasel head to link to, would make a nice trophy for wikipedians with a good record of fixing instances. -- Alan Peakall 13:12, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For laughs, do a google images search of ferret buster or ferret legalization. -- Miguel

I wonder (as above) if "weaseling" and "weasel term" are good terms in this context were many of the targets for the advice have other mother tongues than English, and won't understand.
--Ruhrjung 17:22, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I think it depends on what is meant by "weasel terms/words". Are they different opinions that when quoted together result in a libellous article directed at individuals or institutions, and in which the opinion formers try to evade their share of the libel by remaining anonymous? If so, yes, it would indeed be a misuse of anonymity.

On the other hand, I must stress that it must be permissible in genuine discourse, to argue from different sides about cultural, scientific, or philosophical themes and to cite anonymous general trends of opinions either because the holders of these opinions are too numerous or the tradition of the (anonymous) opinion goes back too far in time to ascertain the individuals by name. Can someone make that clear, :) Dieter Simon 00:31, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Artistic Interpretation and Weasel Words

What if what you are stating is actually an opinion that can't be verified. For example, "Many numismatists consider the ultra high relief St. Gauden's double eagle to be the most beautiful coin ever struck in the United States."

This uses weasel words, but I don't think it's inappropriate because it's an artistic interpretation that is always subjective, and can't be reduced to objective terms.

Comments?

A statement expressed this way is not that useful, if you think about it. Who are these "many numismatists"? Presumably not all of them, or you could say "all numismatists". 80%? 50%? 20%? In fact, there are a lot of numismatists, so "many" might just mean 1%, and maybe the coin is really an ugly duckling that some collectors like anyway. You could support the statement by adding something like "in an informal 1996 poll, 89% of collectors considered the double eagle to be the most beautiful US coin". (I've seen these for stamps, presumably coin rags run the same kind of thing from time to time.) In practice, since coin beauty is not usually a controversial topic, an opinion will likely be unchallenged for a long time, but without objective facts in support, some random editor may come along some day and say "I've seen the coin, ugh", and summarily delete the statement. We've all done weasel wording, but to me they're kludges waiting to be upgraded to facts. Stan 18:21, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This policy is overly broad

The policy on "Avoid weasel terms" is overly broad. It needs to be renamed and rewritten to conform to the guidelines set forth at Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles#Be_careful_with_weaselspeak:

Use of weaselspeak, expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", "is alleged" -- which are legitimate rhetorical devices -- should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden POV, since "claimed" implies that the claim may not be true and there is some reason to doubt it. For example:

• ...is widely thought to be the work of... (good)
• ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad)

Added: Even the term "weasel terms" is inappropriate. As noted above, what some consider "weasel terms" are in fact legitimate rhetorical devices. As such, the policy should be renamed "Avoid unnecessary vagueness."

-- NetEsq 17:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"Avoid unnecessary vagueness" is itself unnecessarily vague. This policy is not about being vague ("The United States of America is really big", "Einstein was born quite a while ago"), but more specifically about using certain phrases to put non-NPOV words into the mouths of unidentified sources. It's a sneaky dodge around NPOV, and it should be avoided.

Also, I question whether all "legitimate rhetorical devices" are necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. --ESP 22:15, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

<< "Avoid unnecessary vagueness" is itself unnecessarily vague. >>

How about "Avoid unnecessary vagueness about sources." As set forth by other commentators above, attributing statements of general belief to specific sources puts a very bizarre spin on widely-held beliefs. Even a controversial assertion can and should be generalized in many instances. To wit, "Many conspiracy theorists believe that the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy." Too much specificity about who these conspiracy theorists are would cloud the issue. At the same time, the commentary of certain conspiracy theorists may be unique and noteworthy enough to include a more specific reference. -- NetEsq 22:30, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about "Avoid using ventriloquist's dummies"?

Anyways, yes, there are some cases where you just can't name the source (dog people and cat people, for example). There are other times that you're discussing the belief in particular ("Most people believed the Sun moved around the Earth"). As with most rules of thumb, there are exceptions. If you have some good ones to add, and you think people can't figure that out for themselves, why don't you put them on the page itself? --ESP 23:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

STUBBISH WEASELY OR INADVERTANT? It must be considered fine if one person knows they read a POV somewhere but can't remember much about the details mustn't it? They can write "a minority opinion is that..." this is enough to trigger a memory in the mind of a later reader who may know the details of that belief on a subject and fill in the ambiguity. In this way many an obscure source or topic has become expanded to an authororative article on a little known subject making Wiki in some ways a superior source of reference. The only problem is if the opinion is actually a little known but indisutable fact in which case the use of a term like "minority" may inadvertantly become weasely.

It's "fine" in the same way spelling mistakes or grammatical errors are "fine". Creating Wikipedia articles is an iterative and collaborative task. Like other guidelines, this one simply points in the direction of "better". --ESP 19:47, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I disagree with the name and spirit of this page. So called "weasel terms" are indeed legitimate rhetorical devices (though, of course, they may be abused, as can as any other rhetorical device.) Any such statement as "Some people think X" or "Many people believe Y" should be carefully reviewed through the ordinary peer process, (just as any statement at all must be peer reviewed.) If the editorial community on the Wikipedia finds that these statements are accurate, then there is no reason not to have them.

Substantiating every single observation running through society with specific citations would make the encyclopedia boring and tedious to write and read, and, moreover, incomplete -- if a view is very widespread, it becomes pointless to list long source citations of everyone who holds this view, and it distorts the spirit of the statement by making it appear as if only those listed hold this view. At some point, it is only necessary to report on the view itself, rather than upon every single person who has ever expressed it. When writing about anything related to the arts (an inherently subjective area), or indeed, when writing any sentence that is not merely reporting on a physical fact, the article text would become awkward and overwrought with lengthy, yet incomplete, lists of attributions.

Let's look at Mona Lisa for an example. Taking only a few of the many "weasel statements" on that page, we find:

• "It may be the most famous painting in the world"
• "Few other works of art are so romanticized, celebrated, or reproduced."
• "The enigmatic 'smile' is the picture's most famous feature..."
• "Others have described it [the smile] as both innocent and inviting."
• "The most probable suspect is the wealthy Florentine Madonna Lisa del Giocondo."

According to whom? Many, many people have uttered support for these positions. Are we to list them all?

These are all "weasel statements", according to the definitions set forth on this page. 80% of the articles in the Wikipedia use technically unsubstantiated statements like these, and there is nothing at all wrong with that, if the peer review process achieves consensus as to their accuracy.

It's tedious and contrived, bordering on absurd, to write articles according to the tenets presented on [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms]]. I wholeheartedly oppose this page. Kwertii 08:07, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DanKeshet (Wikipedia is littered with personal opinions masked as common knowledge)

Indeed it is, and such personal opinions must certainly be removed. However, this does not imply that we shouldn't include any useful common knowledge information in the Wikipedia simply because the language used to describe common knowledge is similar to language used to describe personal opinions. Kwertii 23:55, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Avoid" does not mean "forbid". The question is whether adding a single layer of redirection is a fair application of a neutral point of view.

I also don't see any particularly weaselly terms in the Mona Lisa quotes you've called out, with the exception of "Others have described it...". This policy is not the same as requiring people to cite sources; it's a style thing. If a sentence can't stand on its own as without a "Some have said" or "some people think" in front of it, it lacks NPOV, and needs to be better defined. --ESP 21:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I moved the disclaimer about the policy to the bottom. I think the policy page should be about the policy, and discussion should be on the discussion page. It doesn't make sense to tell people "see the talk page" without first having explained what's being talked about.

Please don't move the disclaimer again. --ESP 22:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Exceptions

So, this style guideline has been pretty controversial. I revised the description to specifically call out some exceptions, and to point out that as with all rules of thumb, it should be balanced against other considerations. I'd love to see some feedback from some detractors. Does including exceptions make this style guideline at least somewhat less worrisome? --ESP 01:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)