Wikipedia:Be cautious with compliments and mass attribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them. "
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This disputed page was an intended replacement to two disputed nodes in the Style Guide:

Avoid peacock terms (disputed)
Avoid weasel words (disputed)

See the "discussion" page.

1 Be cautious with compliments and vague attribution
2 "Peacocks" and "weasels"
- 2.1 Superlative compliments (aka "peacock terms")
- 2.2 Vague attribution (also known as "weasel words")
3 See also

[edit] Be cautious with compliments and vague attribution

Quite often Wikipedia articles begin with a quick introduction to a subject something like this:

War and Peace is widely regarded as Tolstoy's greatest novel.

However, attributing ideas vaguely to consensus opinion has its dangers (and has been derided by some Wikipedians as the use of "peacock terms" in the case of compliments, and "weasel words" more generally). Vague attributions should be used only with extreme caution.

When writing a critical evaluation, too much of an author's own opinion of the subject may leak through. For example, the author of an article about a musical group may be very enthusiastic about the group, but an encyclopedia article's purpose is to describe the material to someone who is unfamiliar with it, not to declare its author's enthusiasm.

Even when discussing a less subjective characteristic such as popularity, articles should strive for accuracy and specificity: was the music widely popular in a particular country; was it popular among fans of a certain kind of music; was it critically well-regarded; what were the sales figures? Wikipedia requires that you cite your sources: it is always preferable to support your statements with factual references (sales figures, quotations from critics, etc.).

If you find yourself using many vague attributions or gushing superlatives without sources, your writing style is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

Consider the wikipedia entry for William Shakespeare. The lead paragraph contains many complimentary phrases, for example:

"... considered by many to have been the greatest writer the English language has ever known"

To begin with this article skips the problem of defining what group of people hold this opinion ("many"?) and the statement may seem vague at first ("great" in what way?), but the article quickly goes on to explain what Shakespeare is known for, and it even goes as far as to provide evidence of his popularity. The opening statement is well-supported by the article's later discussion, and the entire introduction is brief. The bulk of the article consists of indisputably factual material which supports the introduction's apparently vague and complimentary wording.

[edit] "Peacocks" and "weasels"

These common phrases are often warnings of a disguised lack of the neutral point of view required in all Wikipedia articles:

[edit] Superlative compliments (aka "peacock terms")

"an important..."
"one of the most important..."
"one of the best..."
"the most influential..."
"a significant..."

[edit] Vague attribution (also known as "weasel words")

"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..."

An article's use of these phrases suggests that its author may be attempting to pass off his or her personal opinions.

However, careful and judicious use of these phrases is a matter of controversy among Wikipedians. Though some Wikipedians strongly oppose their use, no general consensus holds that they should be completely avoided. Situations where such phrases might be acceptable include the beginning of an article (where there's a need to present some general evaluation of the subject) and an expression of the subject's place in the constellation of human knowledge. Before launching into a mass of factual data such as biography or bibliography, an article should explain why the reader might care about this information.