Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words

Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words

While Wikipedia humor has its place, if Wikipedia is to ever be taken seriously then the project needs to move as far away as possible from the concepts like, "Embrace weasel words". This type of thinking is best suited to the ilk of tabloids and other media that have no qualms about writing in ways that are questionable ethically. While the spirit of this essay might be not be morally questionable, when there exists Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words guidelines, why arm those with questionable morals with this? This essay is very counter to Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it encourages the usage of weasel words which by the definition of "weasel word" allows for, "avoiding forming a clear position on a particular issue". Wikipedia's policy on forming a position is unmistakable, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." (→Netscott) 09:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. (→Netscott) 09:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bad, better, best are clear. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. The article does make a good point about weasel words being appropriate if backed up with a citation, particularly if identifying the "some people" involved adds unnecessary complexity to what should be a brief subject. Either this article could be trimmed down to highlight this point, or this point could be incorporated as one of the exceptions in the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words article. Andrew Oakley 09:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (as creator of page). While light-hearted in tone, the page is not actually humor, but is a sincere attempt to explain my opinions about how carefully-used, properly-cited weasel words may improve an article. Several users have commented on the essay and found it enlightening. The essay clearly identifies itself as merely the opinions of some editors, and it clearly links to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Cooincidentally, this was nominated for deletion immediately after I disagreed with User:Netscott at an RFC. --Alecmconroy 10:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is true that this was nominated after a disagreement. In the process of familiarizing myself with who Alecmconroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was (after our disagreement) I discovered this essay and realized the need for its deletion (particularly as it was only created in July). Our disagreement has to do with original research and funny enough this essay lends itself to those in support of original research. (→Netscott) 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm inclined to agree that it was purely coincidental, in light of the fact the copyright concerns were legitimate, and having looked over what a goood contributor to wikipedia you've been. I got a talk page full of deletion and copyright concerns five seconds after I had an RFC disagreement, so it seemed just a might fishy for a moment, but in the light of day, all good fun, no foul.  :) --Alecmconroy 11:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I have no objections to this page existing as an essay. It is a learning page, based in the "Don't bite the newcomer" mentality. In terms of essays it describes the issues well, weasel words are Never portrayed as the "Best" alternative, merely putting them forward as stepping stones from the most biased wordings, on the way to the ultimately best and most neutral/objective wording. If there could ever exist a two step guide and explanation of what NPOV really means, this would be it in my mind. Ansell 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Some would argue that this essay is helpful. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It could be argued by some that this essay is not encyclopedic, nor a valuable aid to editors (as it directly contradicts and derogates Wikipedia's 'avoid weasel words' axiom. Pull the lever. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Obivous keep, why even nominate? It's a silly essay, and essays have Zero Value or Authority on Wikipedia (despite what some think). Might was well get rid of WP:BEANS or the stupid Reichstag thing if we're going to nuke this. rootology (T) 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though it might benefit from some clarification about when is best to apply these ideas. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is bad advice, and in my opinion, we shouldn't keep essays that give bad advice. --Improv 18:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete; widespread humor pages might have a place in project space, but something this is probably better off without the ambiguity of authority. I'm beginning to think most essays should be on user subpages, and only the popular/long-standing ones moved to Wikipedia: space. -- nae'blis 19:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe with humor notice or a rename (like WHEN to embrace weasel words); similar in concept to Wikipedia:Assume Bad Faith. It's an essay, a little opinion is okay. Makes clear several instances where weasel words are bad; the essay appears to outline a concept of gradual improvement, something good for Wikipedia. Everyone has to build up their editing talen, after all. Karwynn (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not an encyclopedia article.--MONGO 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient use of weasel words. --Carnildo 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Makes some valid points, but its main examples are in my opinion wrong and should at minimum be rewritten. That's a matter for the talk page though. Phr (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)