Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Wikipedia:Words to watch. (Discuss)

This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:AWW WP:WEASEL

This page in a nutshell: Avoid using phrases such as "some people say," or any variations of the sort, except in direct quotation.

Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution. Weasel 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 neutral point of view; 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.

For example, "Luton, UK is the nicest town in the world", is an example of a biased or uninformative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world."

Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:

• Who says that?
• When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
• 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 hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is unverifiable.

Contents 1 Overview 1.1 Use of the passive voice 2 Improving weasel-worded statements 3 Exceptions 4 See also 5 Notes

[edit] Overview

The main problem with weasel words is that they interfere with Wikipedia's neutral point of view; but they give rise to other problems too:

• 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 "as of" guideline to help with articles that incorrectly use "recently" and "currently". The {{When}} template can be used where an editor wants to bring attention to a vague time reference in an article.

General examples include:

• 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".
• Improper use of "some", "many", "all", "most". As a rule, it is better to avoid ad populum arguments, such as "as most Wikipedians agree..."
• 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 improper synthesis.

[edit] Use of the passive voice

Certain weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice—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 appeal to authority without naming the authority in question.

In addition, although the passive voice is syntactically correct, The Chicago Manual of Style suggests: "As a matter of style, passive voice [...] is typically, though not always, inferior to the active voice [...]",^[1] and Strunk and White, in The Elements of Style (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 AP Stylebook contradicts^{[citation needed]} Strunk & White on this point.

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.

[edit] Improving weasel-worded statements

The {{Who?}} tag (^[who?]), the {{Which?}} tag (^[which?]), and the {{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 {{weasel word}} tag (^{[weasel words]}) can also be used, although it may be less informative than {{Who?}}, {{Which?}} and {{by whom?}} for readers and editors seeking to improve the text. In extreme cases, the {{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).^[2]

Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Consider the sentence "The Yankees 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 baseball 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 World Series championships—about three times as many as any other team."^[3]

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.

[edit] Exceptions

As with any rule of thumb, this guideline presents a rather sweeping generalization: don't use weasel words in Wikipedia 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 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.

[edit] See also

• Articles with weasel words
• Avoid peacock terms
• Avoid speculation
• Avoid trite expressions, be concise
• Weasel word
• Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid

[edit] Notes