Inline videos. See also:Category: Articles with embedded Videos..

Biocrawler:Avoid weasel terms

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

(Redirected from Biocrawler:Avoid weasel words)

This page is a proposed Biocrawler policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

This guideline is disputed. See the talk page.

A weasel term (or weasel word) is a word intended to soften the force of a statement and/or make an assertion as though one is just conveying some other's opinion. See weasel term.

This is a blatantly biased statement:

"Montreal is the coolest city in the world."

This is a half-hearted attempt to give it the appearance of a neutral point of view:

"Some people say Montreal is the coolest city in the world."

Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have?

It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion (and to seek out other alternate opinions to discuss) than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. This doesn't really give a neutral point of view; it just spreads hearsay, or (worse) couches personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax.

"Some have criticized the King James Version as archaic (e.g. "thou shalt not" instead of "do not")..." The use of "some" is a disguised passive voice which means to avoid attribution, just as the passive voice may do. Legend has it... is a weasel phrase, a cover for not pinning down which legend, in play where and when. The phrase is also a flag for spurious "legends."

Here's a listing of some weasel terms that should be used only with caution:

"Some people say..."
"...is widely regarded as..."
"...is widely considered..."
"...has been called..."
"It is believed that..."
"It has been suggested/noticed/decided..."
"Some people believe..."
"It has been said that..."
"Some would say..."
"Legend has it that..."
"Critics say that..."
"Some historians argue..."

If a sentence can't stand on its own without a weasel term, it lacks NPOV (neutral point of view) and should be better defined by adding sources for the statement (which helps focus the discussion on the dispute).

Contents

1 Identifying weasel terms

2 Improving weasel terms

3 Exceptions

4 Peacock terms

5 See also

[edit]

Identifying weasel terms

Where a weasel term is used as a temporary patch to resolve an article's NPOV dispute, it may be noted on the article's talk page.

[edit]

Improving weasel terms

Here's some weaselly writing:

"Some people have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate."

The following is just as weaselly:

"The president's critics have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate."

This alone doesn't give the reader much to work with. The writer should find a source -- or even better, a quote -- for the opinion.

Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush. In it, he asked "George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?".

Of course, it is best to include opinions that are important information for the reader: Richard Clarke's criticisms of the foreign policy of the Bush administration are more important to include than a crank pamphleteer's accusation that Bush is a space lizard in bondage to Zionists. [1] (http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/exposing_reptilians.htm) And this is true even if you can cite the source.

[edit]

Exceptions

In general, such terms should be avoided to keep writing clear, and to avoid biased statements. 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." (The author was afraid to say, "In the Middle Ages it was clear to everyone from Portugal to China that the sun revolved around the earth." If someone finds an exception, the article is even stronger.)
When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats." (Though here, too, the opinion or preference is under discussion, very little actual information is transmitted.)
When contrasting a minority opinion. "Although Brahms's work is part of 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.

Note that, in such cases, these vague terms are not rightly called "weasel" words. "Weasel" is an insult implying sneakiness. Do not try to use this policy to make personal attacks on other Biocrawlerns who use words like "some" in the above way.

[edit]

Peacock terms

Main article: Biocrawler: Avoid peacock terms

Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel terms. For example,

"The Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams in history."

It's tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly sentence:

"Some people think that the Yankees are one of the greatest baseball teams 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.

Continuing along this line, we can instead rewrite the original as:

"The Yankees are one of the most successful baseball teams in history."

It's true and also captures the pithiness of the original sentence. A followup sentence or expansion later in the article can deal with the statistics if necessary. Eliminating opinionated writing does not require immediate presentation of supporting facts, it requires simply finding the most truthfully accurate statement that is synonymous with it.

[edit]