Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms

Supporters of "avoid peacock terms" include:

David Gerard (I love it, I love it)
...

Opponents of "avoid peacock terms" include:

NetEsq (overly broad)
kwertii (overly broad; perjorative name for a very useful and usually entirely appropriately used category of words; if a qualitative conclusion is generally agreed upon by the relevant scholars, then that should be stated directly, using so-called "peacock" and/or "weasel" terms.)
Tannin If Mozart was the greatest composer of the classical period, say so. Always tell it like it is. No more, no less.
doom opposed, for the same reasons I oppose the "weasel words" guide.
...

I sort of half-buy this. The words can be used carefully, for instance, on a graded scale of "the most important", "one of the most important", "important", "notable", and "obscure". These are all somewhat subjective, but not POV if all the editors agree on the ranking, and serve the important :-) purpose of telling readers whether the subject of the article rate. Consider "random page"; if it brings up one of the ten Dukes of Omnium, I'd like to get a general idea of how this duke rates compared to the other Omnia, other lords, Englishmen as a whole, etc, and preferably in the lead paragraph so I know whether I want to bother reading further. In practice of course, the terms are misused a lot, reducing the value of the grading system. Stan 17:26 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible to use these in some kind of true way, like Albert Einstein was the most important physicist of the 20th century. But there's really not much information there -- it's kind of just noise. It'd be better to say, Albert Einstein created the theory of relativity, which changed how scientists view the universe. I think it's a lot better to give the concrete particulars of a person's achievements than to say, This person was really really really really really really important. Again, though, this is an "avoid", not an "avoid like the plague". -- ESP 00:25 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's alright for Einstein, but what about (say) Mozart or Bach? Do we have to start the article with quotations from musicians and music critics to establish that these were Great Composers (tm)? I'd say: always consider if you can replace a peacock term with impressive facts, if you cannot, then just put it in and let the Force of Wiki sort it out. In extreme cases this could be a NPOV issue, but for most peacock terms it doesn't get half as serious. I think the problem here is caused by the word "avoid". Just turn it into "replace", and voila -- constructive! -- Anonymous Mar 30 2004

On the Dukes of Omnium -- ha ha -- which of these two ledes really gets you reading?

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? - May 8, 1691) is widely considered to be one of the most important men to carry that title.

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? - May 8, 1691) was personal counselor to King James I, general in the War of the Roses, a chemist, bandleader, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revokation for civil-service appointments in India.

The first tells the reader that the subject is important; the second shows the reader that the subject is important (or, at least, important to some people). I think it's up to the reader to decide what is important to them. -- ESP 01:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

I agree. Peacock terms (great name for it, btw) usually seem to be placeholders used by editors unprepared or too lazy to make good well-researched statements. Obviously, it's much easier to write "one of the most important" than all the concrete statements in your above example. (that example should go on the policy page itself, I think). One of my creative writing professors always told me "show; don't tell." As placeholders, however, such terms serve much the same purpose as stub articles; they give interested editors an opportunity to expand and improve the article. This is a good policy! -- Wapcaplet 02:14 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I half-agree because indeed specificity is good; but part of our task is to condense and summarize. To use the Peckinridge example above, the second example buries the reader with detail without placing in context - was Peckinridge the best personal counselor ever, or an embarassing failure because he spent too much working on a crackpot theory organizing chemical compounds by musical notes? If the reader doesn't even know where or what Guiana is, the specific description gives no hint as to whether the Guiana protectorship is of any general interest, or just a factoid added because the encyclopedist is showing off. Or to come back closer to reality, the Einstein example saying his theory "changed how scientists view the universe" is specific and accurate but useless, because NASA says that about everything they do these days, down to and including Jake Garn's barf bag. The ideal lead paragraph needs to include the overall assessment/context, and the rest of the article can then support that assertion with specific and detailed explanations. I do agree, however, that the terms are overused; only 1 in 20 senators should get to be "one of the most important", the others are just "served", and maybe "notable for X". Stan 04:57 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cool! So now there's 2-1/2 of us. Seriously, criticism well stated, but again as with all rules of thumb, this is one that can be bent. In general the peacock phrases should be avoided if possible. -- ESP 05:08 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with this guideline, and also with the perjorative designation "peacock terms" for this category of words, for much the same reasons as I've already stated on Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms. We're not writing a math textbook here, and it is not fitting to always use exact, scientific language when talking about qualitative rather than quantitative fields of study. Certainly, these "peacock terms" can be misused to convey a POV, but this doesn't imply that there are not legitimate uses for this category of phraseology. If a particular duke is generally regarded by historians or others who study dukes as the best/worst/whateverest person to carry the title, then that is important information to have in the article. Better than either example above (assuming that William Peckenridge is, in fact, widely regarded as one of the most important Dukes of Omnium ever) would be:

William Peckenridge, eighth Duke of Omnium (1642? - May 8, 1691) was personal counselor to King James I, general in the War of the Roses, a chemist, bandleader, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded the title of Omnium to include protectorship of Guiana and right of revokation for civil-service appointments in India. Peckenridge is widely regarded as one of the most important men ever to carry his title.

Likewise, I think the Tolstoy example over on Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms presents a perfect instance of the type of situtation where so-called "peacock terms" and "weasel terms" are entirely appropriate. If a qualitative point is generally accepted by those who study a topic, then it should be so noted in the article in the clearest manner possible - which necessitates the use of "weasel" or "peacock" terms. Count my vote against this one, too. Kwertii 00:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The thing is that this policy (call it a strong suggestion?) addresses a real problem. Have you ever noticed how so very many obscure rock bands or albums are vastly influential and highly critically regarded, going by their articles? "Avoid peacock terms" or something synonymous is pretty much the appropriate response. (Look at some versions of Mariah Carey for an egregious example.)

Note also it says "Avoid peacock terms," not "Peacock terms are banned by policy and to be deleted on sight." - David Gerard 01:06, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

hehe. I see your point. Though, I think that the obscure rock band articles will continue to be like that, even with this policy. That's just unavoidable; everyone's going to write up their friends' band as vastly influential and highly critically regarded; all that can be done with that sort of thing is just to fix it when it happens.

It's nice having a ~~policy~~ style suggestion to refer them to. Particularly in cases like Mariah Carey, where the edit history reads like a circle of fans assiduously restoring the peacock terms whenever deleted.

On the other hand, having a formal policy like this will frequently be used as justification for editing out "good" uses of "peacock terms", removing potentially vast amounts of useful information like that War and Peace is generally regarded as Tolstoy's best work, or that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are Tolkien's best work, or that most people who study dukes think that Duke Peckenridge was the best Duke of Omnium ever, etc.

Are there a lot of examples of this happening? Do they ever get sorted out on the talk page?

There're just waaaaaaaay too many cases where this sort of wording is "good" and should be used - not to mention that having a negatively cast title for this type of word automatically biases the sort against using these terms. Kwertii 01:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it having a negatively cast title like "peacock terms", and the resulting bias against their use, is a good thing in general. It's a phenomenon I've always wanted a term for so I could gently suggest not acting otherwise, and "peacock terms" is an excellent one. (Perhaps I've been appalled by too many press releases.)

I suggest it be moved to a more general style guide with a strong caveat to discuss it on the talk page. (The answer to "Critics acclaim it as ..." is "name some, or lots, in the article if it doesn't break the flow.") This is much more style-guide level stuff than hard policy. - David Gerard 01:46, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this entry for the same reasons I've stated in the "weasel words" discussion (I'm glad to see someone likes my Tolstoy example). I have to say that I think that the "But it's only a rule of thumb!" defense is pretty weaselly in itself. Far from being something to avoid, the usage of peacock and weasel terms are an absolute necessity to present a quick, general, summary of why anyone would care about a topic. It's often desireable to go on and provide more detail later, but trying to do it all at once is a formula for incomprehensible expository lumps, and it's one of my major peeves with a lot of wikipedia writing. Factual writing need not be dry, tedious and boring, and you will not achieve total objectivity (or even neutrality) no matter how tedious you're willing to get. - Doom 22:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Do we have examples of articles which have been trashed with this as the excuse? - David Gerard 23:35, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at an article about a writer, and you find that it leads off with a detailed listing of biographical events without any explication of why anyone would care about this writer, then you're looking at one of the victims of this "just the facts, mam" attitude. -- Doom 18:20, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Writing with lots of peacock terms is tedious and boring. It's empty stuffing that doesn't actually say anything. Avoiding peacock terms helps focus on the concrete, making writing more stimulating and enjoyable. Words like "great", "important", "best", "influential" are so abstract as to be useless. --ESP 18:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Ground abstractions in specifics" is a good rule. However, "Don't use abstractions" is not a good rule.

And further (probably the real dispute here): "Never present value judgements" is *also* not a good rule. -- Doom 17:27, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, "try to avoid value judgements without substantiation" is an entirely suitable rule IMO. I've given examples of the sort of article that really needs to be told "avoid peacock terms"; do you have examples of articles which have been trashed with it as the excuse? I want to know concretely how we can keep something like this but avoid practical examples of the theoretical objections being raised here - David Gerard 18:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard writes: 'Absolutely. However, "try to avoid value judgements without substantiation" is an entirely suitable rule IMO.'

First of all: that's not what this rule says, is it? If you believe that sentences should have verbs with their subjects, you don't recommend that people avoid using subjects.

(And: how hard do you try and avoid it, and how much substantiation is necessary? I also claim that reference to a general consensus view is often okay, though that's derided next door as the use of "weasel terms".)

David Gerard continues: ' I've given examples of the sort of article that really needs to be told "avoid peacock terms"; ':

I understand that there are problems with empty fanboy gushing, my complaint is that these rules appear to be attempts at attacking a symptom rather than the problem.

David Gerard: 'do you have examples of articles which have been trashed with it as the excuse?'

It isn't hard to find examples of the use of "peacock terms" (known in ordinary english as "superlatives") that seem entirely appropriate. Try doing searches of the existing wiki nodes for phrases like "most influential"; "world's greatest"; "most significant", etc.

Here's a selection:

Bertrand_Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (May 18, 1872 - February 2, 1970) was one of the most influential mathematicians, philosophers and logicians working (mostly) in the 20th century, an important political liberal, activist and a populariser of philosophy.

Marco_Polo

Marco Polo is widely regarded as one of the world's greatest explorers -- although some skeptics rather see him as the world's greatest storyteller.

String quartet

Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) - wrote sixteen quartets widely regarded as among the finest quartets by any composer Unix

The early development of what is believed to be one of the most influential operating systems in history was unique, and nobody would have predicted the growth of UNIX after its first incarnation.

Tourism in India

Perhaps India's best-known site is the Taj Mahal, one of the world's greatest architectural achievements.

Alain Robert

Alain Robert, born April 7, 1962 in Valence, France, is one of the world's greatest rock and urban climbers.

DOOM

Due to its contributions to the first-person shooter genre, DOOM is widely regarded as one of the most influential games of all time.

-- Doom 20:36, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

That isn't the question I asked. The question I asked was whether articles were being trashed with this as the excuse. Do you have examples? I'm not questioning that superlatives are appropriate in many cases, at all. - David Gerard 20:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now that was a fast response. I was just ducking in to try and improve my examples.

But anyway: yeah, I know I'm not directly answering the question that you asked, because what you're asking for is quite hard to dig up. If your point here is that there's a need to think about the effects that rules have on the group dynamic, consider the plight of a would be author that starts feeling vaugely guilty about the way they're writing about a subject, and decides to put it aside until they can find a way to re-write it from a god-like view stripped of human values. Or consider the kind of writing that I was complaining about: articles that launch into factual detail without making an attempt to explain why the subject is worth discussing.

Here's an example that comes to mind of that syndrome... though I fixed it with the judicious addition of a "weasel" ("Best known for") rather than a "peacock" in this case (though maybe "very distinctive style" counts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Damon_Runyon&diff=2844604&oldid=2481286

Or if you like, you could join me over in Talk:Gary_Snyder where I ponder how to improve the lead "Gary Snyder (born May 8, 1930) is an American poet and environmental activist. Often associated with the Beats, his work represents one of the most significant attempts to bridge the gap between nature and culture in 20th century literature."

-- Doom 21:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)