Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Shortcuts: WP:APT WP:SUPER WP:PCK WP:PEA WP:PEACOCK

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 1 Examples 1.1 Words and phrases to watch for 2 Do not hide the important facts 3 Inappropriate subjects 4 Tagging articles that have peacock terms 5 Don't peacock your facts 6 See also 7 Notes

[edit] Examples

Consider the following examples.

Peacock term:

• William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) is considered, by many people, to be the most important man ever to carry that title.

Better:

• William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602? - May 8, 1671) was personal counselor to King Charles I, royalist general in the English Civil War, a chemist, poet, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded his family's possessions to include the proprietorship of the Province of New Hampshire and the hereditary Lord High Bailiffship of Guernsey and Sark.

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:

• Brazil has a vigorous economy.

Better:

• According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP).^[1][2]

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.

[edit] Words and phrases to watch for

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:

acclaimed amazing astonishing authoritative award‑winning awesome beautiful best brilliant canonical charismatic classic defining and definitive eminent enigma esteemed excellent exciting extraordinary fabulous famous and infamous fantastic fully genius global greatest iconic immensely

impactful important impressive incendiary indisputable influential innovative inspirational inspired interesting intriguing leader legendary long major masterly mature mediocre memorable notable noted outstanding pioneer popular premium prestigious primary really good

remarkable renowned seminal short significant skillful solutions single-handedly staunch superior superlative talented the most top transcendent undoubtedly unique virtually virtuoso visionary well-educated well-established well-known well-regarded world-class world-renowned world-famous worst

[edit] Do not hide the important facts

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.

[edit] Inappropriate subjects

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.

[edit] Tagging articles that have peacock terms

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 greatest^{[peacock term]} and most influential^{[peacock term]} man who ever lived."

[edit] Don't peacock your facts

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.

[edit] See also

• Template:Peacock term
• Template:Peacock
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Wikipuffery

[edit] Notes