Misplaced Pages

:Avoid weasel words - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 17 July 2006 (→See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:23, 17 July 2006 by Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) (→See also)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This guideline is a part of the English Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style.
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.		Shortcut
  • ]

Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.


For example, "Montreal is the nicest city in the world," is a biased or normative statement. Application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."

Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative:

  • Who says that? You?
  • When did they say it?
  • How many people think that? Just how many is "some"? "most"??
  • What kind of people think that? Where are they?
  • What kind of bias might they have?
  • Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. Template:Associations/Wikipedia Bad Things

Examples

Here are some weasel words that are often found in Misplaced Pages articles (but shouldn't be):

  • "Some people say..."
  • "Some argue..."
  • "Contrary to many..."
  • "As opposed to most..."
  • "Research has shown..."
  • "...is widely regarded as..."
  • "...is widely considered to be..."
  • "It is believed that..."
  • "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..."
  • "Some people believe..."
  • "Some feel that..."
  • "They say that..."
  • "Many people say..."
  • "It may be that..."
  • "Could it be that..."
  • "It could be argued that..."
  • "Critics/experts say that..."
  • "Some historians argue..."
  • "Considered by many..."
  • "Critics contend..."
  • "Observers say..."
  • "Fans say..."
  • "Accusations..."
  • "Apparently..."
  • "Allegedly..."
  • "Arguably..."
  • "Serious scholars/scientists/researchers..."
  • "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers..."
  • "The (mainstream) scientific community"
  • "It is claimed..."
  • "It should be noted that..."
  • "Correctly (justly, properly, ...) or not, ..."
  • Anthropomorphisms like "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."
  • "...is only one side of the story"
  • "Experts suggest..."
  • "Four out of Five Doctors/Dentists agree..."

Other problems

The main problem with weasel words is that they interfere with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view. But there are other problems as well.

  • Wordiness. Weasel words are sentence stuffing; they make sentences longer and less information-dense.
  • Passive voice. Many weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been said that ...". The passive voice is syntactically correct, but Strunk and White, in their Elements of Style, recommend against its overuse, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice. However, the main point in the misuse of the passive voice in weaseling is not its stylistic usage, whether it is recommended or not by grammarians and linguists, but the generalisation that permits a weaseler to avoid naming who has done what, who has said what, in such phrases as "it has been said he has had a shady past". The person making this statement is therefore able to hide behind it and in this way avoids having to substantiate his statement as to who said what.
  • Convoluted syntax. Weasel words require some convoluted syntax to get a point across. "A square has four sides" is a simple sentence; "A square is widely considered as having four sides" puts the key point into a strange little participial phrase confusing the reader.
  • Use of "clearly". In written language, the word "clearly" is often used to tell the reader that an argument or discussion is clear when it is not. Actually writing clearly is more effective.
  • Some/many/most/all/few. Using weasel words like Some people think... leads to arguments about how many people actually think something. Is it some people or most people? How many is many people? As a rule, ad populum arguments should be avoided as a general means of providing support for a position.
  • Repetition. There are only so many times in one paragraph you can say "X is widely regarded to have done Y" before it sounds far too constructed.

Improving weasel words

The {{weasel}} tag can be added to the top of an article or section to bring to attention that it contains weasel words.

The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts.

Here is some weaselly writing: "Some people have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate."

The following is just as weaselly: "His critics have suggested that John Smith may be a functional illiterate."

If we add a source for the opinion, the readers can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability:

"Author Ed Jones, in his book John Smith is an Idiot, wrote an open letter to Smith asking, 'John, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'"

Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. For example: "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history."

It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly sentence: "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history."

But how can we qualify this opinion with an opinion holder? There are millions of Yankees fans, and hundreds of baseball experts who would pick the Yankees as the best team in history. The trick here is to eliminate the peacock term in the first place.

"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team."

By sticking to concrete and factual information, we can avoid the need to name any opinion at all.

Exceptions

As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:

  • When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around 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. "Although Brahms's work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value." Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact; it's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.

See also

External links