Misplaced Pages

:Avoid weasel words: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:01, 24 April 2010 editGnevinAWB (talk | contribs)6,876 edits →Notes: Better Categories as per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Caterogies_not_slashes.21 using AWB← Previous edit Revision as of 20:06, 24 April 2010 edit undoBozMo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,164 edits see talk: replace page with salient parts of Words to watch to which it may be redirected shortlyNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:


{{subcat guideline|style guideline|Avoid weasel words|WP:AWW|WP:WEASEL}} {{subcat guideline|style guideline|Avoid weasel words|WP:AWW|WP:WEASEL}}
{{nutshell|Avoid using phrases such as "some people say," or any variations of the sort, except in direct quotation.}}


<!-- WEASEL GIMP.2 IMAGE --> <!-- WEASEL GIMP.2 IMAGE -->
] ]


'''Weasel words''' are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. Examples of ways in which weasel words can deliberately or accidentally undermine Misplaced Pages's neutrality are given below
'''Weasel words''' are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. On Misplaced Pages, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution. ] words can present an apparent force of authority seemingly supporting statements without allowing the reader to decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable, or they can call into question a statement. If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a ]; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them.


==Words that may introduce bias==
For example, "{{xt|Luton, UK is the nicest town in the world}}", is an example of a ]ed or uninformative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the ''illusion'' of neutrality: "''{{xt|Some people say'' Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world}}."
===Statement characterizations===

{{Quote box4
Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:
|quote = <big>'''Note, observe, surmise, reveal, point out, feel, claim, insist, contend, admit, confess, deny'''</big>
*''Who'' says that?
|width = 70%
*''When'' do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
|align = center
*''How many'' people think it? How many is ''some''?
*What ''kind'' of people think it? ''Where'' are they?
*What kind of ''bias'' might they have?
*''Why'' is this of any significance?

Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread ], or couch personal ] in vague, indirect ]. It is better to put a name to an opinion by ] which are ] than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is ].

==Overview==
{{Quote box
|width = 35%
|border = 1px
|align = right
|bgcolor =
|fontsize = 1em
|title_bg = #dddddd
|title_fnt =
|title = Examples
|quote = <!--
IMPORTANT: PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE EXAMPLES TO THIS LIST!
the weasel
The purpose of this example section is mainly didactic: it should provide a small collection of carefully chosen weasel words to make the article's main point clear, especially to new editors. Please do not add any more examples. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of weasel words. Its brevity will help new Wikipedians to quickly grasp the pillars of the project, and to become immediately productive. Long lists are generally boring, and may induce readers to jump over them, or, worse, to skip the rest of the article altogether. In particular, please avoid adding a separate entry for trivial variations of expressions that are already listed (for example, adding "it is said..."/"it has been said..." if there's already "they say..."). This being an open list, it is already becoming far too long. Obviously people are not taking a blind bit of notice of the recommendation to keep it short. What is the point of ticking off an example every time you come across one? There must be millions of examples with all their variations out there. Are we going to try to list them all?
-->
<!-- Please do not add any more examples, or this list will soon become never-ending--><nowiki/>
* "](ly)..."
* "Some people say..."
* "Contrary to many..."
* "Research has shown..."
* "...is claimed to be..."
* "...is thought to be..."
* "It is believed that..."
* "It is rumored that..."
* "Some feel that..."
* "Critics/experts say that..."
* "It is claimed..."
* "It has been reported that..."
* "It is generally considered that..."
* "noted" or "observed" when applied to opinions
* ]s such as "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
<!-- Enough is enough. See above.-->
|salign =
|source =
}} }}
{{Shortcut|WP:SAY|WP:CLAIM}}
Ensure that the way Misplaced Pages characterizes people's statements is neutral and accurate. Using ] synonyms for the verb ''to say'' can imply a one-sided point of view by Misplaced Pages. For example, to write that someone ''noted'', ''observed'' or ''surmised'' can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness or access to evidence when that is unverifiable. To write that a person ''revealed'', ''pointed out'', ''exposed'', or ''found'' something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. Statements may indicate a person's sentiments or impressions, but are not equivalent to them—the use of ''feel'' as a synonym for ''say'' is thus inadvisable.


To write that someone ''claimed'' or ''insisted'' something can raise a question of the truth of the claim, particularly after a factual statement—for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a later statement claimed he is not a racist". Similarly, be judicious in the use of ''admit'', ''confess'' and ''deny'', particularly of ], because these verbs can convey guilt—for example, "Supervisors said they had heard about the incident" is better than "Supervisors confessed they had heard about the incident", which suggests that their response was blameworthy.
The main problem with weasel words is that they interfere with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view; but they give rise to other problems too:


''Stated'', ''wrote'', and ''according to'', like ''said'', are neutral in almost all contexts.
* '''Uninformative'''. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide accurate and useful information. Weasel words are imprecise, often inaccurate, and usually uninformative.
* '''Wordy'''. Weasel words are generally just sentence stuffing; they make sentences longer without carrying any useful information.
* '''Unnecessary debate'''. Expressions such as "Some people think such and such" lead to questions, or even arguments, about ''how many'' people actually think that. How many people is ''some people'', and who are they?
* '''Repetition'''. Overuse of weasel words can lead to very monotonous articles, owing to the constraints they impose on sentence structure—for example: "Some argue... Others respond... Still others point out that " This is poor writing for an encyclopedia.
* '''Time sense'''. There is an ] to help with articles that incorrectly use "recently" and "currently". The {{Tl|When}} template can be used where an editor wants to bring attention to a vague time reference in an article.


===Expressions of doubt===
General examples include:
{{Quote box4
|quote = <big>'''Supposed, purported, alleged, accused, so-called''' </big>
|width = 80%
|align = center
}}{{shortcut|WP:ALLEGED}}
Words such as ''supposed'' and ''purported'' can imply that a given point is inaccurate. ''Alleged'' and ''accused'' are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When ''alleged'' or ''accused'' are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. ''So-called'' can mean ''commonly named, falsely named'', or ''contentiously named'' and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply ''called'' is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.


=== Editorializing===
* '''Use of "clearly" or "obviously"'''. If something does not need to be said, do not say it. If it does, do not apologize for it by using words like "clearly".
{{Quote box4
* '''Improper use of "some", "many", "all", "most"'''. As a rule, it is better to avoid '']'' arguments, such as "as most Wikipedians agree..."
|quote = <big>'''Notably, interestingly, it should be noted, clearly, of course, unfortunately, tragically, untimely, fortunately, happily, luckily''' </big>
* '''Use of "possibly" or "seemingly"'''. If something cannot be verified then it cannot be included. Unsourced use of "possibly" is pure speculation. If a doubtful statement is sourced, then an attribution for the source should be given. Likewise, unsourced use of "seemingly" or "seems to be" is ].
|width = 80%
|align = center
}}
{{shortcut|WP:EDITORIAL|WP:OPED}}
The use of adverbs such as ''notably'' and ''interestingly'', and phrases such as ''it should be noted'', to highlight something as particularly significant without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as ''fundamentally, essentially'', and ''basically'' can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. ''Clearly, obviously, naturally'', and ''of course'' not only suggest a point of view, they are often nothing but excess verbiage. Misplaced Pages should not take a view as to whether an event was ''fortunate'' or not.


===Unsupported attributions===
===Use of the passive voice===
{{Quote box4
Certain weasel words require a sentence to be in the ]—e.g., "It has been said that ...". The passive voice does not, on its own, identify who stands behind the opinions or actions it describes. Expressions such as "it has been said that A is B" and "A is thought to be B" create a convincing-sounding ] without naming the authority in question.
|quote = <big>'''Some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, it was proved''' </big>

|width = 80%
In addition, although the passive voice is syntactically correct, '']'' suggests: "As a matter of style, passive voice is typically, though not always, inferior to the active voice ",<ref>
|align = center
{{cite book
|title= ]
|edition= 15
|year= 2003
|publisher= ]
|location= Chicago
|isbn= 0-226-104070-6
|page= 177
|pages= 957
|chapter= 5.112
|quote= As a matter of style, passive voice is typically, though not always, inferior to the active voice .
}} }}
]
</ref>
{{shortcut|WP:AWW|WP:WEASEL}}
and ] and ], in '']'' (1918), recommend that it be used sparingly, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice. On the other hand, the '']'' contradicts{{fact}} Strunk & White on this point.
These phrases present the appearance of support for statements but deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "]s" by Misplaced Pages contributors. They may pad out sentences without conveying any useful information, and they may disguise a non-neutral point of view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

Most critically, editors should not use passive voice constructs to avoid attributing words or actions to the appropriate speaker or subject, or to omit any other important detail from a sentence.

==Improving weasel-worded statements==

The {{tl|Who?}} tag ({{Who?}}), the {{tl|Which?}} tag ({{Which?}}), and the {{tl|by whom?}} tag ({{by whom?}}) (all of which include an internal wikilink to this page) can be added directly to the phrase in question, to draw attention to the presence of weasel words. The {{tl|weasel word}} tag ({{weasel word}}) can also be used, although it may be less informative than {{tl|Who?}}, {{tl|Which?}} and {{tl|by whom?}} for readers and editors seeking to improve the text. In extreme cases, the {{tl|weasel}} tag can be added to the top of an article or section.

The key to improving articles containing weasel words is either '''a)''' to name a source for the opinion (i.e., attribution), or '''b)''' to change opinionated language into concrete facts (i.e., substantiation).<ref>See ] in the ].</ref>

] are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Consider the sentence "The ] are the greatest baseball team in history." It is tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way—for example, "The Yankees are considered by many to be the greatest ] team in history." But how can this assertion be qualified? And how many is ''many''? While it may well be true that millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts would, if asked, name the Yankees as the best baseball team in history, the statement, as it stands, is too vague to be informative. In the absence of specific figures, it would be better to avoid mentioning this opinion entirely, in favor of presenting the facts:

*"As of 2009, The New York Yankees have won 27 ] championships—about three times as many as any other team."<ref name="WSFeat">{{cite web|url=http://www.baseball-almanac.com/ws/wsmenu.shtml|title=World Series History|publisher=Baseball Almanac|accessdate=2009-12-21}}</ref>

This informs the reader that the Yankees have (at the time of writing) had more wins than any other baseball team. The reader is then free to draw his or her own conclusions about the "greatness" of the Yankees, based on the information given. Such a strategy favours objectivity over subjectivity, and rationality over bias.

==Exceptions==
{{further|]}}
As with any ], this guideline presents a rather sweeping generalization: don't use weasel words in Misplaced Pages articles. This advice should be balanced against other needs for the text, such as the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions should be noted in particular:

*When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion—for example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth."
*When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify—for example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."
*When contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one—for example, "Although ]'s work is part of the classical music canon, ] has questioned its value." Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact. It's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.


== See also == == See also ==

Revision as of 20:06, 24 April 2010

It has been suggested that this page be merged into Misplaced Pages:Words to watch. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2010.
Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages style guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
A weasel with a speech balloon that says, "Some people say that weasel words are great!"

Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. Examples of ways in which weasel words can deliberately or accidentally undermine Misplaced Pages's neutrality are given below

Words that may introduce bias

Statement characterizations

Template:Quote box4

Shortcuts

Ensure that the way Misplaced Pages characterizes people's statements is neutral and accurate. Using loaded synonyms for the verb to say can imply a one-sided point of view by Misplaced Pages. For example, to write that someone noted, observed or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness or access to evidence when that is unverifiable. To write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. Statements may indicate a person's sentiments or impressions, but are not equivalent to them—the use of feel as a synonym for say is thus inadvisable.

To write that someone claimed or insisted something can raise a question of the truth of the claim, particularly after a factual statement—for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a later statement claimed he is not a racist". Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt—for example, "Supervisors said they had heard about the incident" is better than "Supervisors confessed they had heard about the incident", which suggests that their response was blameworthy.

Stated, wrote, and according to, like said, are neutral in almost all contexts.

Expressions of doubt

Template:Quote box4

Shortcut

Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Editorializing

Template:Quote box4

Shortcuts

The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course not only suggest a point of view, they are often nothing but excess verbiage. Misplaced Pages should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

Unsupported attributions

Template:Quote box4

Shortcuts

These phrases present the appearance of support for statements but deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Misplaced Pages contributors. They may pad out sentences without conveying any useful information, and they may disguise a non-neutral point of view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

See also

Notes

Categories: