On 7/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)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