Landrace.Wiki:Editorialising

ℹ️

This is a project information page for Landrace.Wiki. It describes the project's standards, processes, or structure. It is not an encyclopaedic article.

The {{Editorialising}} tag flags a sentence where the editor's voice intrudes on neutral encyclopaedic prose. It marks opinion presented as fact, dramatic framing, emphasis adverbs, and judgemental adjectives that have crept into the wikitext without attribution.

Landrace.Wiki is a documentation project. Pages report what published sources say in neutral prose. Editorial voice, analytical framing and rhetorical emphasis belong in Patreon longform, which can be cited back via the dillonYYYYx reference pattern.

What counts as editorialising

Anything where the sentence's tone or framing carries the editor's view rather than the source's. Common patterns:

• Adverbs that assert the editor's stance: "clearly", "obviously", "of course", "needless to say", "interestingly", "remarkably".
• Phrases that imply the reader should already agree: "it is worth noting", "it should be remembered", "the truth is".
• Judgement adjectives applied to programmes, decisions or outcomes: "misguided", "flawed", "ill-conceived", "elegant", "robust".
• Dramatic framings borrowed from journalism or essay-writing: tour-guide constructions, short-sentence lists for emphasis, "nobody has studied this" refrains.
• False logical connectors: "thus", "therefore", "hence" linking claims that do not actually follow from each other.

The flagged LLM tics from the project style guide ("comprehensive", "striking", "of particular note", "fundamentally different") are all editorialising patterns. Reaching for them is the model performing authority rather than reporting content.

What does not count

• Undue praise: use {{Peacock term}}.
• Synthesis or interpretation not in sources: use {{Original research}}.
• Vague wording: use {{Clarify}}.
• Missing citation on a factual claim: use {{Citation needed}}.
• Opinion attributed to a named author. "Chouvy argues that the campaign was misguided" reports an attributed view; it is not editorialising.

How to resolve a tagged claim

In order of preference:

1. Rewrite the sentence in neutral voice. Drop the editor-voice wording and restate what the sources actually say. Most editorialising can be cut without losing factual content.
2. Attribute the framing to whoever actually holds the view. "The campaign was misguided" becomes "Chouvy describes the campaign as misguided", with the source cited inline.
3. Move the analytical framing to a Patreon post and cite the post via the dillonYYYYx reference pattern. The wiki then reports the attributed argument rather than performing it.

Removing the tag without addressing the wording is not a resolution.

See also

• {{Editorialising}}, the inline tag
• Landrace.Wiki:Original research, companion policy for synthesis
• Landrace.Wiki:Peacock term, companion policy for praise
• Help:Sourcing, citation conventions
• Category:Pages with editorialising, cleanup queue