This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weeb Dingle (talk | contribs) at 18:22, 11 November 2018 (→rough patches: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:22, 11 November 2018 by Weeb Dingle (talk | contribs) (→rough patches: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weasel word article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
My recent addition
I had written this intending it to be a new article and copy it into Wiki, without realizing that an article already existed. It would have been nice if someone had linked this in "Misplaced Pages: Avoid weasel terms" which I had checked. Somehow I hadn't spotted this "Weasel word" article in the Google search. Dieter Simon 01:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Weasel words / empty eggs
I think the article would be far better focused if it centered on the image about eggs.
Weaselling as a general thing takes many forms - and the image goes back a long way, into Greek myth. But for me the point about weasel words is that when they get into a sentence it still looks like a sentence but it's weightless, empty and dead. Like an egg when a weasel's tongue has got into it.
Any consensus on recasting the article this way?
SquisherDa (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I think if the article was re-written with this point of focus, the idea might be lost for the folks like myself (I'm interested in learning how to help cite weasel-wording within articles because students consistently cited Wiki articles instead of going to *possible* original sources when I taught as a GTA). It leaves me rather irate when subjective logic is imparted as fact, and I feel that this article is more discussing weaseling within the context of Misplaced Pages itself. Perhaps an disambiguation reference would be appropriate at the top of this article? Because I agree that there are many types of weasel-wording and it's varied uses might warrant such a thing... but I'm very new to the idea of editing on Misplaced Pages in general, citing weaseling, etc. it's difficult for me to judge whether a page for its origins outside of the realm of selling (be it a tangible thing or idea) is appropriate. Any thoughts? And any suggestions for me as I begin attempting to edit? TonyaLM (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Editorial vanity
I can't help but notice that this page focuses almost entirely on the context of, and application of the term to, Misplaced Pages - surely a greater focus on political and media sources would be more appropriate? In particular, I note that the "examples" sidebar lists a large number of phrases that, whilst unsuitable for Misplaced Pages, would be quite acceptable in most media - for example, newspapers or academic discussion (indeed, in my field - academic law - it is far more common, even in published writing, to refer to secondary sources asserting that there is a body of objective evidence than to refer directly to the data). 86.154.116.26 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Removing "Multilingual"
This doesn't really seem like a "weasel word" except in very specific situations. There are plenty of times in which "multilingual" is a perfectly good descriptor, and the only instance I can think of it really being a weasel word would be if one was specifically making a claim that required a person to speak many languages in order for them to be considered an authority. I think this strays a bit from the intention of the phrase which is for general terms that intentionally obfuscate the source (or lack thereof) for a claim of evidence. "Multilingual" could be used in this manner, but in most instances it's fine. (At the very least, the argument made here sounds more like a stylistic issue of using a nonspecific word when a more specific one could be used.) 2605:E000:92D0:B800:E99B:15E2:1A78:7CD5 (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with this point-of-view. I've been having a discussion about it at User talk:Citizen Canine#Weasel words. The word 'multilingual' is valid in its own right. It has a well-understood meaning and could only be considered 'weasel' if used to deceive the reader about something. The somewhat contrived current example of claiming to be multilingual in connection with the use of American English and British English is a case in point. Anyone claiming to be multilingual because they can use both variants would be a flat-out liar. Interestingly, the word has its own Misplaced Pages article, where no reference is made to its use as a weasel word. If 'multilingual' is a weasel word, then so are a large number of other words: bilingual, and most other words beginning 'multi-'. I suggest the word is removed from the list. For similar reasons I also suggest 'cross-platform' is removed. 31.52.166.114 (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Excellent job all
This is the most thoughtful, interesting and useful entry in all Misplaced Pages. Thank you all. GenacGenac (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The article would benefit from a measure of critique of the concept
The use of the passive voice in science has a very long history and can be traced to its use in proceedings and publications the Royal Society; it was used, legitimately in my opinion, to lend an air of detachment - the very ideal of the scientist - to experimental and other observations. It is still very widely used today in scientific writings. Imagine the horror of a scientific PhD thesis written in first person and active voice!
I think that the definition of "weasel words" could benefit from tightening. "Weasel words are intended to make a statement sound more legitimate and impressive." However, if there is genuine uncertainty the use of words that are indefinite is legitimate. There needs to be more emphasis in the article between genuine uncertainty, and word use that expresses this, and the use of phrases intended to deceive.
See: Uncertainty and Behaviour: Perceptions, Decisions and Actions in Business, Melanie E. Kreye, Routledge 2016 p. 36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs)
rough patches
Though not a terrible article, there are significant flaws. For starters:
- No connection is drawn to plausible deniability (institutionalized weaseling) much less the function of Aesopian language. I now see that the concept of equivocation is not even introduced. Such gaps likely indicate deep-running flaws in the article.
- The Examples list, while interesting reading, appears to be original research. Without proper sources, editors are freed to make stuff up as "proof" for their hobbyhorse. Only the first entry offers a citation, and that appears irrelevant.
And overall the piece needs to not scan so much like some undergrad's class essay. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is information, NOT persuasive argumentation.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)