|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms |
 |
This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell: Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance. |
In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section.
Contents |
Consider the following examples.
Peacock term:
Better:
The first example simply tells the reader that the Duke of Omnium was important. The second example shows the reader how he was important, without directly saying so. Show, don't tell.
Peacock term:
Better:
The first example simply tells the reader that the Brazilian economy is important. The second example shows the reader that it is. Show, don't tell.
Deciding whether a particular wording is suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment. However, oft-abused words include:
|
|
|
This does not mean one should underplay the legitimate importance of a topic. It is appropriate to write "The Pacific Ocean is Earth's largest ocean" and "World War II was among the most important wars of the century". Peacock terms can be avoided when dealing with the third longest river in Rhode Island, but when it comes to the Amazon River, Wikipedia readers should be told just how big it really is. When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be told that—tell them how important and why.
In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute original research or synthesis). A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph.
Conversely, if you are trying to dress up something that does not belong in Wikipedia— your band, your Web site, your company's product—think twice about it. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium or home page service. Wikipedians are experienced in recognizing inappropriate pages, and if an article is for personal promotion or blatant advertising, it will be speedily deleted or subjected to the articles for deletion or proposed deletion processes.
If you find an article making use of peacock terms, and you do not want to fix it yourself, you can add the template {{peacock}} to the beginning of the article, an article section, or an article's talk page to call other editors' attention for this article. You may also add {{Peacock term}} to specific phrases within the article.
For example - "John Smith is the greatestPeacock term and most influentialPeacock term man who ever lived."
Avoid drumming up interest in facts or trivia by tagging them with editorial remarks. For example, it is unhelpful to prefix a fact or historical development with comments like “interestingly”, “ironically”, “surprisingly”, or “it should be noted” and the like. Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what to find interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |