This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 12 November 2018 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Weasel word/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:00, 12 November 2018 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Weasel word/Archive 1) (bot)(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)
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)