| Revision as of 21:18, 13 April 2005 editPorphyria (talk | contribs)128 edits →Cleanup← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:06, 13 April 2005 edit undoChalst (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,286 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| That's an interesting excuse. I however would never accuse you of "weaselly" writing. ] 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | That's an interesting excuse. I however would never accuse you of "weaselly" writing. ] 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :I've been guilty of it on occasion, and there are defences for using it: check out my summary at ]. ''Could be interpreted'' is, according to the wikipedia term of art, a weasel phrase: does anybody so interpret this? Is the fact of such interpretations encyclopedic? It's not false, nor is it POV, but it is vague and fassl short of best editing practice. I was highlighting one example of a few such sentences in the article to bring attention to the problem. --- ] 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:06, 13 April 2005
Early history of this page
Look to the talk pages Talk:Slogan 'Islamofascism' and Talk:List of political epithets for much discussion of this text. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup
Needs to be done:
- The list of claimants to have coined this term needs to be rationalised. My user page User:Chalst/islamofascism may be useful to others;
- Weaselly terms like However, the goal of an integration of Arab (particularly Saudi) oil riches and theocracy, could be interpreted as a form of fascism. need to be rewritten.
I've not really got a high enough interest level to do this task well. --- Charles Stewart 18:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have time to criticize; but not to contribute. Well isn't that "convenient"? Porphyria 20:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've made plenty of contributions to this material and related material. Check my edits. And criticism is contribution, when it is constructive. --- Charles Stewart 21:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting excuse. I however would never accuse you of "weaselly" writing. Porphyria 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've been guilty of it on occasion, and there are defences for using it: check out my summary at Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid weasel terms#Minimise weasel terms. Could be interpreted is, according to the wikipedia term of art, a weasel phrase: does anybody so interpret this? Is the fact of such interpretations encyclopedic? It's not false, nor is it POV, but it is vague and fassl short of best editing practice. I was highlighting one example of a few such sentences in the article to bring attention to the problem. --- Charles Stewart 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)