[WikiEN-l] An alternative to "critics"

[ScottL]

Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 7/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've never much liked sentences that start "Critics argue that...".
>> Here's an alternative I saw at [[Tied Test]]:
>>
>> --
>> Some commentators believed Chappell should have taken Snedden's word
>> that the catch was good.
>> --
>>
>> I find this to be more natural, less contrived, and more NPOV.
>> "Critics" seems to imply that the people had it in for the subject of
>> the article for some reason. "Commentators" is much more neutral -
>> just (presumably somewhat notable) people who expressed an opinion on
>> the event.
>>
>> Any opinions? Other alternatives to the infamous "critics"?
> 
> It's still weasel words. How about, "So and So from ''newspaper X''
> have written that that dude messed up and should be fired. <source
> from newspaper X by So and So>"  Be specific.  Who are these
> "commentators" or "critics".  If it is a general feeling, then is
> there some sort of poll that could show that?  --LV

   I get annoyed with people who over use the interdiction against 
weasel words to the point that I think fewer people understand weasel 
words than understand copyright.  It is only weasel wording if you say 
"some people" when you really mean "Me personally or the people I agree 
with".  That said, just because its not weasel wording does not mean it 
is acceptable to put unreferenced material.  The problem is that 
sometimes you really do mean "some commentators" or in some contexts all 
of the "weasel words" are what you really do mean and what you should 
use.  Its just that in these contexts you should also include a 
references.

   I have seen a number of cases where a general category of people 
holding a position are referenced to and a single notable example given 
without the implication that they are the only ones "such as green peace 
(link to ref)", "such as Roger Ebert (ref)".  Personally I think we 
should not ever refer to ANYTHING as weasel wording since it can be 
inflammatory but instead refer to the actual editorial policy reason 
that the specific instance is wrong.  This gives people guidance on how 
to fix it and is less inflammatory.


   That said I suppose I am not disagreeing with anything said above but 
I felt like I had to get that rant off my chest after seeing so many 
good editors be 100% unhelpful to many newbies by screaming about 
"weasel words".  I have not looked at "avoid weasel words" for a while 
but I think perhaps we shoudl add the suggestion that: If you find a 
problem with unreferenced or inappropriately referenced facts don't try 
and weasel out of supporting you position by saying "well its weasel 
words".

Dalf