User:Xiaphias/who link

When indicating the opinion or belief of a group of people, one must provide the name of a specific person or organization and/or cite a source which confirms the statement.[1]

See also: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

Why?

Vague, unspecified groups may be cited as a means of presenting one's own views with an added sense of legitimacy. For example, one could write that "some people believe vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream." This statement is true, of course, but it was likely added only to indicate the author's opinion.

When a person/institution is named, (1) the statement is verifiably accurate, and (2) the reader can evaluate the value of the statement based upon the credibility of the person/institution.

Examples

BAD: Some scientists refute this assertion.
GOOD: Some scientists refute this assertion.^[3]
-----WHY: A reference or external link indicates a specific scientist or scientific organization which refutes the assertion, proving the statement accurate and worthy of inclusion.

BAD:Most historians agree with the hypothesis.
GOOD:Most historians agree with the hypothesis, according to a recent poll.^[6]
-----WHY:Even though no historians are named, the fact that more than half of historians agree is sufficiently important to merit inclusion, and the poll proves this fact.

BAD: Some activists object to this policy.
GOOD: Some activists object to this policy. Dr. Hillman argues that...
-----WHY: A person or group needn't be named within the sentence; in the second example, it is clear that Dr. Hillman is one of the activists who objects.

BAD:A few people find the notion offensive.
GOOD:A few people, like Hobo Jim,^[2] find the notion offensive.
-----WHY: A reader can evaluate whether Hobo Jim is a reliable source. If he is not, the reader will likely discredit his statement.