Talk:Neolithic long house
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Praemonitus in topic Weasel words
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Weasel words
editI've been attempting to address the words "It is thought that" as they lack proper attribution, but have had my efforts repeatedly reverted. Cf. MOS:WEASEL. Who said this? Well apparently they are sourced by a (for me inaccessible) reference Marciniak (2005). As such, I changed the wording to list him as the source, but this too was reverted. If there are other sources for this opinion then they too should be listed. Meanwhile, I find it sufficient to attribute it to Marciniak (2005). If this somewhat WP:POINTY behavior continues, then the topic may need a third party to resolve. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- For ease of reference, the original wording was It is thought that these houses had no windows and only one doorway.
- This was changed to According to A. Marciniak, these houses had no windows and only one doorway.
- The article now reads Surviving evidence suggests these houses had no windows and only one doorway.
- When dealing with uncertainty it is easy to stray into weasel words. The initial wording could be improved because it might be unclear whether it is speculation or something a bit stronger. The latest wording is an improvement. I wonder if a little more detail may help a general reader, along the lines of Johnbod's comment.
- The issue with attributing the point to Marciniak in the text rather than as a reference is that it may appear to be their original point; perhaps they are the most significant person to reach that conclusion; or even that it is just them who holds that view. I only have a very partial preview in Google Books, so can't offer the full context for the information, but this is very likely to be a point which Marciniak includes as a summary of current consensus which provides a setting for their main focus on animal remains. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I agree the article would benefit from an expansion to provide context for the conclusion (about the door with no windows). Some more accessible references would likely help. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- As I have tried to explain to you, the only remains we have are below, or at best at, ground level, so all conclusions about windows are necessarily uncertain; doorways are not much different. For some reason, you have decided that "It is thought that" is an unacceptably weaselly phrasing of scholarly uncertainty, and have been going around various unrelated articles removing it, often leaving rather a mess. At first you were happy enough with the actual point, and just changed the uncertainty wording. Now you have taken against the actual point, while managing to accuse me of being pointy! As Richard says, the conclusion is afaik universal, & it was misleading to make it sound as though it was some original theory by Marciniak (not I think a big name in the field, and not really focusing on building layout). You wanted "a third party to resolve", and you've had it. Thanks, Richard. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- My issue has nothing to do with the factual nature of the statement, but because anybody with an opinion can satisfy the statement "It is thought that". If it had said something like "The general consensus among the anthropological community is that", then it carries more weight and makes the source for the opinion clearer. There are other ways to resolve this that satisfy Wikipedia guidelines. My various edits were an attempt to find a consensus while resolving my concern, but you initially come across as uncivil and stubborn. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- As I have tried to explain to you, the only remains we have are below, or at best at, ground level, so all conclusions about windows are necessarily uncertain; doorways are not much different. For some reason, you have decided that "It is thought that" is an unacceptably weaselly phrasing of scholarly uncertainty, and have been going around various unrelated articles removing it, often leaving rather a mess. At first you were happy enough with the actual point, and just changed the uncertainty wording. Now you have taken against the actual point, while managing to accuse me of being pointy! As Richard says, the conclusion is afaik universal, & it was misleading to make it sound as though it was some original theory by Marciniak (not I think a big name in the field, and not really focusing on building layout). You wanted "a third party to resolve", and you've had it. Thanks, Richard. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I agree the article would benefit from an expansion to provide context for the conclusion (about the door with no windows). Some more accessible references would likely help. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)