Talk:Weasel word

tergiversate

"The use of weasel words to avoid making an outright assertion is a synonym to tergiversate.[2]" I have looked up tergiversate, I read this sentence again and again and I do not have a clue what it means or what the author wants to say with it. Is this sentence really avaluable addition or is it just to provide a link to another word? 13-1-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.134.243 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My recent addition

I had written this intending it to be a new article and copy it into Wiki, without realizing that an article already existed. It would have been nice if someone had linked this in "Wikipedia: Avoid weasel terms" which I had checked. Somehow I hadn't spotted this "Weasel word" article in the Google search. Dieter Simon 01:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FLIP MAAR ALLEMAAL FLIP MAAR FLIP MAAR IK WIL JULLIE GELD HEBBEN

Vague words

I would like to see a mention of the use of 'vague quantity' words like "some" and "many", and 'vague probability' words like "might", "may be", and "up to" in the article. Otherwise very good. I found it useful to link from another article where a weaseler was used exactly as described here. Naysayer 17:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Naysayer, they are called quantifiers (some, many) on the one hand, and subjunctives (might)(may) on the other.

See para "Generalization in the use of weasel words" covers that: Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers..." Examples given are few, many, people.

Yes, the subjunctives of verbs is another instance of weaseling. As for "up to", do you mean something like "up to 50 people were queueing up..."? Yes, that is true, it is often an easy way out for a reporter making a statement about such things. However, that is where things become more difficult. It is not always easy to find out the exact number of people involved in an event. Yet, reported it ought to be rather than not reporting it at all just because they weren't able to find the exact number of people involved "in the heat of the battle".

There were other failings. Do you remember the reporting of war casualties, especially during World War One: "50,000 casualties killed, wounded or missing ..." It was that catch-all phrase that was such an acceptable form to war correspondents and authorities alike (didn't it seem to matter whether soldiers were killed rather than wounded?), they almost certainly wouldn't get away with that kind of thing these days. (How's that for weaseling?)

You shouldn't, however, make up your own concepts, such as "vague quantity" or "vague probability" (a probability is already vague, anyway). Call them by their correct name (quantifier, subjunctive form, etc.), that makes it more professional.

Anyway, what's to stop you from adding content yourself? You can add to an article just as anyone else. So, do have a go. Dieter Simon 00:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed many articles using the phrase "by far" such as All Bengal Teachers Association: "ABTA is by far the largest teachers organization in the state." IMO, it should simply say "ABTA is the largest...." Should similar uses of "by far" be changed? --mtz206 16:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. Using weight for an example, we could say "the heaviest monitor, at 10kg" which would allow the second heaviest to be 9.5kg or some other amount close to 10. "By far" informs the reader that there is a large gap between quantities. If the ABTA is indeed by far the largest, why would there be a need to remove the word? 69.148.172.240 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

the bottom line is; some say = I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.55.120 (talk) 15:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Say, does anyone know the origin of the term? I vaguely recall a style book from my distant past crediting someone with inventing the phrase. Scix 06:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I always had the notion that "weasel words" were so called from the weasel's ability to enter and escape through very small holes relative to their body-size. 202.185.80.52 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumptuous conclusion?

Conversely the excessive, and therefore redundant use of emphatic adverbs does not result in a well-crafted style which might have had maximum effect:

The building was absolutely destroyed (destroyed already implies gone). After the spa treatment she felt completely healed. (healed implies 100% health). It was utterly chaotic on the streets (chaotic already implies no order).

I disagree with this. It's very easy to imagine "partially destroyed" (the Acropolis), "partially chaotic" (a nation where violence is common in one area but not in another), or "partially healed" (a scab). This writer assumes that when something is said to be "healed", it is healed completely. It's not uncommon for people to say that they were "healed" while not implying that they were healed completely, and if I said "the room was chaotic" I did not necessarily mean that the room was so absolutely. You may respond that such means I would be interpreting "chaotic" as being "partially chaotic", but the converse is interpreting "chaotic" as "completely chaotic". 68.94.174.226 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Related reference

• Death Sentence by Don Watson
• Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Cliches, Cant and Management Jargon by Don Watson

---

BRAVO! Finally, a meaningful reference about the term. Perhaps, scholarship isn't dead after all... 70.106.60.44 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

It occurs to me that the term 'Weasel Words' is in itself a sterling example of Weasel Words. It is an attempt to discredit a writer's style, performed in a manner which avoids making any precise or measurable statement about what is wrong with the style, using a phraseology which is expressly designed to conjure all kinds of cliched and folkloric images in the mind of the reader.

A criticism of a writer such as "The Use of Vague References" is by contrast a precise and accurate one, since it makes its point without the use of cliche, vague reference, or innuendo.

Ian.

Hi Ian,

Can you point us in the right direction here. Is this "The Use of Vague References" part of a Wikipedia article, or is it an external website? Perhaps you can give us the website address, so we can have a look at this? I don't know what you are referring to. Dieter Simon 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This was a good point, or three points tangled up,maybe.

• to accuse, starts an argument - insult,invective,but not profanity, so "You dirty weasel"
• who when using the accusation against another, is in the right or wrong? (Ian's point,yes?)
• generalising can be no error, as in subsection which shows such usages.(Use of vague references is not the best name),Yes/nNewbyguesses 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Ian. I find the term is often used by very opinionated people who resent having their sweeping statements challenged or toned down. Qualifiers such as "some" or "many" often make an assertion more, not less, accurate.99.234.101.193 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

---

from talk on NPOV about "some argue"

My favorite weasel phrase was someone on a forum said, "Not to be racist or anything" and then said something controvesial. Next someone replied to that and said that putting "not to be racist" does not make something not racist. Dilbert cartoons taught me "with all due respect" as a way to insult your boss without him knowing. I think this should be renamed to "weasel phrase" because these are phrases and not single words. DyslexicEditor 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"With all due respect"

I disagree that this phrase and other similar modifiers are invariably weasel words. At times, it is indeed used in this way; DyslexicEditor gives an example above. Nevertheless, such phrases are used at least as commonly with the opposite intent: to avoid giving offense in a setting where overt, unvarnished criticism or contradiction are, by convention, considered insulting or discourteous. This is particularly true in conversations involving more than two people whose participants are acquaintances but not close friends, such as most business meetings. However, it could also apply to casual social and even family conversations in environments where a high degree of politeness and deference in speech is considered the norm. In such settings, failure to use a modifier like "with all due respect..." or "in my opinion..." before expressing disagreement or criticism could be considered peremptory, rude or disrespectful. The amount of direct confrontation that is socially acceptable in a conversation varies depending on the setting, subculture and prevailing custom, and modifying phrases are essential in modulating confrontation when such modulation is required.

In this way, "with all due respect" is different from, for example, "it has been decided," in that the former has a place in polite discourse with no intent to deceive, whereas the latter is almost (hah! a weasel word) always meant to diffuse responsibility for what follows. One can imagine situations in which this is the best choice for the writer, but the deceptive intent is still there.

I wrote the above but hit "send" before signing. 69.242.33.42 01:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Essex9999

Agreed. I've changed the wording so its not concrete in that respect.Gershwinrb 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a semi-major reorganzation and tightening of the article today (March 22), much of it tightening the prose, removing irrelevancies, and rearranging for greater clarity. Just thought I'd let everyone else know. Gershwinrb 04:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasely phrases that are confusing me.

Hi; what are the un-weaselfied (?) versions of these phrases:

• "At the beginning, it was the train that was late."
• "Where was it again that we first met?"
• "After the end of the Californian gold rush, there were many ghost towns."
• "There are people who wash very infrequently"

I saw those phrases used as examples in the article, and I am trying to figure how you would say them any other way. Mostly because I find that section slightly confusing and I'd like to clear it up a little, but I can't tell if I'm missing the point, or if the point was not stated well.

The first statement is phrased very odd to begin with and I'm having a hard time understanding what it means at all, let alone how it is weaselly.

The second phrase, would the "correct" version of that be "Where did we first meet, again?" or would it be something that focused more on the speaker, like: "I forgot where we first met, do you remember?"

The third statement... I really don't see anything wrong with that.

The fourth one, I can't think of a context in which that would not be weasely, but at the same time I can't think of a better way to say it.

I get the impression that the idea of "weasel words" is reserved for blatant generalizations and "padding", like the phrases in the beginning of the article: "With all due respect..." or "As we all know...". But the examples in the last section don't seem to fit the description in the first section.

Could somebody clarify?

Also I am a little bit confused with the statement that "one" is always a "weasel word". For example, in the above post by 69.242.33.42, there is a statement: "One can imagine situations in which this is the best choice for the writer, but the deceptive intent is still there." That statement seems perfectly legitimate to me. I can't think of a better way to state it. The generalization was intentional and appropriate. But this article seems to give a bad connotation to "weasel words" and therefore to useful pronouns like "one". I wish that I could help but I am not very good with English and I don't want to do any damage... but I really feel like a lot of the phrases and words mentioned here are more often than not -not- weasel words. Am I wrong? If not, I guess this is more of a "feature request" than anything else!

I also get the feeling that this article would have me believe that "in the above post by 69.242.33.42, there is a statement" is a bad, weasely phrase because I used the word "there". But there really isn't a better word to use. Same with that last sentence :) .

Oh here is another one that confuses me: The "avoid weasel words" article mentions "arguably...". But if the topic in question is well-known to be disputed, then it seems to make sense to start a statement about that topic with "arguably". Like: "Arguably, huge wings make your cheap car look faster." Some people think that and some people don't (I do not!), but maybe I do not know what "arguably" means. Speaking of which, I think that "I would argue that..." is a great weasel phrase. I see that one a lot especially on forums. But then again, that might also fall into the category of phrases that 69.242.33.42 was speaking of -- phrases that are legitimately used to make confrontations not seem so direct when it would be rude to be too direct.

Thanks! --JCipriani 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Sorry about all the edits, I am always changing my mind!

Hi J, your first query on the whole is understandable, but the point was that "the use of the neuter pronoun it as impersonal dummy " is quite legitimate when the author wants to distance himself from what he has written. Yes, these are odd phrases, precisely because they have been taken from various literary sources, therefore taken out of context, therefore sound odd. But the point here is that the little word it tends to make a statement imprecise, and therefore makes it casual-sounding and can't be taken too serious in conversation. The writer or speaker is given some freedom not to be taken too serious, when he might be taken to task why he has already forgotten where they first met, so using it takes the sting out of his forgetfulness.

"At the beginning, it was the train that was late", looked at in the cold light of day, sounds un-English, but not if put into context. The author almost certainly (what a lovely weasel expression) is implying that in the course of the story other probably much more serious things that happened because of the mere train being late, and so caused untold problems to the characters of the tale, and therefore "it" being only the train that was the first thing to be late is almost nothing compared with all those things that were to happen later.

"It was a matter of total indifference that...", well, would the speaker really want to admit a matter being indifferent to him personally or to other people involved in the subject of the conversation? He or they would lay themselves open to be accused of carelessness, indeed of uncaringness if he said something like "this is all the same to us".

With regard to there as in "after the gold rush, there were many ghost towns", the there really again distances the speaker from having to cite the number, or indeed the names of the all those ghost towns. The sheer fact that there were ghost towns is good enough to state what no doubt was true without having to go into details. I hope this makes sense in a matter which is really quite complex to explain. Dieter Simon 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Those four phrases are not weasels, as the article makes clear. I'm rather disturbed that the person above was able to make up nonsensical reasons against them! 86.131.97.181 (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you follow the above drift, that is what I was saying. These are distancing devices which are quite legitimate. In the case of "there", since there cannot possible be anyone who knows just how many of these settlements exist(ed) the "there" indicates a generalization of "there" having been ghost towns, not twenty, not two hundred, not even two thousand of them necessarily. Perhaps, because it being so imprecise what a ghost town is in first place, nobody can be sure just how many of them there were. It is quite legit to use "there" without going into numbers. After all, some people might have wanted to hold you to a precise number? It is only deliberately imprecise statements which are weasel expressions, not generalizations which distance a speaker and save him from having to state facts which he can't possibly know. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, methinks you are better suited attacking the use of "many" (a traditional target of muddy language) instead of "there". You realize that you've made "there" the innocent casualty; here's an example where clarity is absolute: "After the gold rush, there were 15 ghost towns." "There" is not a tool of lazy writers in either case. As for "There are people who wash very infrequently," I'm not sure you are attacking the statement for being poor wiki-speak, or simply a weaselly statement. For the latter, it can be said with precision that "there are" implies an indistinctly numbered subset within a set, that is, "there are people" really is clear in stating the subject of the sentence, which is an indistinct number of people. I'm no grammarian nor linguist, but that statement does not obfuscate the intended meaning. If you were to suggest "People wash very infrequently" is a clearer statement, I would reply that you have just manipulated the original meaning. Now, "People" is the entire set of all people; the entire human race is filthy! It's a shame, really. This article (intended at improving the directness and efficiency of other articles) is rife with fuzzy examples that support themselves only by lack of context. Knowing the context, which has been inconveniently replaced by ellipses (...) in some of these cases so as to illustrate ambiguity, really would make these statements unequivocal. Context included by an author makes several of these so-called "weasel" constructions legitimate phrases. --Carl Brutananadilewski (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of self-referential statement

I am removing the statement directing readers to the Wikipedia essay on avoiding the words as it is not a policy, and if we directed readers of every essay from Article space to Wikipedia space we would quickly get into trouble with the whole concept of self-reference avoidance. Ansell 12:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is an established guideline, so I don't see how this is different from all the other disambiguation links we have from article space to WP space. See for example style guide, original research, citation, guideline, be bold, portal, help and many acronyms such as AFD, CFD, TFD, RFD, MFD, RFA, etc. In these cases, a self-ref is allowed because it does not form part of the body of the article, it is just a disambiguating note at the top. — sjorford++ 12:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't let being self-referential stop you (from providing a link to the Wikipedia guidelines). Most entries in a standard dictionary in any language are self-referential. The whole academic standard of referring or referencing prior sources for most ideas in any scholarly work is, all by itself, self-referential, and self-delusional. 70.106.60.44 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may pick a nit: what does it mean to say that Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is an "established guideline"? Does that mean we're not allowed to change it, or disagree with it, etc? What does it mean for something here on wikipedia to be "established"? (You know, one might even suggest that there's something weasely about a phrase like that, an attempt at imposing a sense of authority where none really exists.) -- Doom (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal of merge/redirect

I would like to propose that the Political Correctness article be merged with this one, and possibly a redirect added. The two are basically talking about the same thing. Jtrainor 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Weasel words and political correctness are really two quite different concepts - if the article say the same things, then one of them obviously needs a re-write. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Jtrainor's message was posted on 8 September 2006.  :) —David Levy 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The brackets

I can't quite put into words what's wrong with the bracketts bits but this is an example

"It has been decided that..." (What has been decided by whom?)

which is in the generalisation paragraph.

presumably, the ellipsis is designed to let the reader know that the speaker would go on to tell you what has been decided, and not just trail off and say nothing. therefore the bracketts should just say (who has decided it?)

maybe I'm being stupid here but I can't think of a time when you would say those words and not say what has been decided, thetrefore no one would need to ask what has been decided? Am I right? Triangl 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Triangl, that is precisely the point. In weasel words, the speaker or writer does not go on to tell you what has been said by whom and he/she does trail off and says nothing. They hide behind the passive voice "it has been..." Weaselers assume that you, the naive reader/listener will take it on board without querying it that "such and such is now better than ever", "that there is now more goodness in this", "that there is now 20% more" without substantiating amounts, qualities and improvements. Speakers will say "it has been decided" without telling you who has decided. It is precisely those unsubstantiated items which are being highlighted in the brackets to point out the weaseling nature of a statement.

After all, this is an encyclopaedia and things need to be clarified (in brackets or any other way) and so they are not a matter of stating the obvious. Dieter Simon 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do an indentation reply. That's not what I meant. I know how the weasel word thing works, what I was getting at was that it should be (who has decided this?) in the brackets, and not (what has been decided) because the weaselling is in trying to force the idea that some authority has made a decision about something. But the point is that something would always be defined eg. if you extend the example given it would read "It has been decided that everyone must be paid equally" the weasel words re the it has been decided part, but if i just didn't tell you what has been decided that ouldnt be weasel words. therefore nothing about what has been decidedshould appear in the brackets Triangl 02:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. The ellipsis indicates, how typical weaseling sentences begin. In the sentence "it has been decided..." it isn't so much what has been decided, but who has decided. That is point, we want to know who made a decision, the ellipsis itself takes it as read that we know what has been decided, as all ellipses do. What follows after the three dots can be filled in by us who know about the decision. What we need to know is whom we can blame for making the decision. That is not given in the sentence. The who, not the what in this case is what the weaseling is all about. That's all. Dieter Simon 01:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"In terms of"

I suggest that the phrase "in terms of" be added to the weasel words section. Over the past few years, the phrase "in terms of" has become over used in spoken English and is entering written form. While perfectly correct in some uses, for example the Wikipedia section on imperial measurements stating that the inch was defined in terms of the yard, the entry for Mount Churchill that uses "in terms of" twice in one sentence is not. This trend seems to have started in the UK but is now becoming more common in the US. I believe it started off as 'business speak', but is now appearing even in scientific discussion. Vincent Crabtree 82.5.44.15 11:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

These are empty words, but not, it seems to me, weasel words. WW are words that have the effect of making a POV into a literally true but vacuous statement: "Some people think that X" is true for practically any POV statement X, but there is almost never an independent 3rd-party source for the statement, i.e., an author who performed some research that backs it up. "In terms of" is a good phrase to avoid, when used as you explain; but it still isn't WW. Jmacwiki (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point JMW, now, might I suggest having a look at, or considering the resources/reliable sources for this article, among them [htpp:www.weaselwords.com.au] (see also "authoritative site" section above), and the books by Don Watson, which are, I would think relevant "Reliable sources" for this article. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 11:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Negationism … the other side of the POV extreme

Elimination of weasel text from articles are extremely important to establish an NPOV standard. My concern, is I have seen POV in a sinister form of negationism, with is the side of this coin, and is just as POV as weasel text. I have seen lots of text neuter the facts to the point they make it a challenge for more basic readers to walk away with a correct NPOV view of the article. For example, someone will put in sourced data (with references) that is positive for something (like a system of belief), and use negationism to neuter any possible criticism in the article with claims of POV and weaseling when someone else edits in a negative view point, in an attempt to counter balance the positive view point already there. Should not all articles be neutral? Is sliced bread really that great? Nonprof. Frinkus 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Scope of this entry

From some of the suggestions here, I think there is some danger of this entry becoming a grab-bag for discussion of all kinds of vagueness, obfuscation, and bureaucratese. "Weasel word" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a word used to avoid stating something forthrightly or directly; a word that makes one's views misleading or confusing." Actually, the second part of that definition doesn't make sense: it is not the views that are misleading, but the words. Nonetheless, I think there is an element of deliberateness in weasel words that is not found in merely muddled or lazy diction (such as "in terms of" or "is widely regarded as"). Skookumpete 18:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

feature

Is "features" a Weasel Word?

"The knife features a 4 inch blade"

--Mike Searson 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a matter of style, a slightly convoluted synonym, but not a weasel word. Nobody is trying to hide behind a phrase, or avoid substantiating a fact which might be unpleasant for the speaker by which he might be found out. That's what listeners would be listening for. Dieter Simon 00:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

“People often write: ‘People often write’” — perhaps they do…

I've noticed that in referring to the habits of word-weaslers, there has here (in the "Weasel word" article and its companion style-guide article) been made reference to the presence of vague implicature and almost always doing so by dint of vague implicature, whence the title of the present topic (and the double entendre thereof). Perhaps it hasn't occurred to militant Anti-Weaselwordists that such unifold referencing is quite lame. For example, why say: “People who use weasel words often put things like…” when by doing so you are committing the same crime (tu quoque)? Crime?? Did I say crime? Now, freedom of press—oops! that doesn't apply here on Wikia, forsooth… Let me put it like this: “Debating is a hot debate.” In other words, it is difficult to debate without having one's foot somewhere near the mouth. The idea of “weasel words”, here at Wikipedia, is another example of the Catchy Jargon-based counterphilosophies which strives to do away with… ahem, Catchy Jargon. You can only split a hair so many times. It's not so important who words something or eventimes exactly how it is worded as much as is why it is worded (and, yes, of course, what is worded). What I'm getting at is this: Wikipedia (as a whole) seem (to me) to be trying too hard to be "all things to all men". Now, I hate far-fetched editorials as much as the next guy, but, in order to understand what is being told one often needs to assume a willing suspension of disbelief. How do you like it when you're trying to tell a child a story and you keep getting interrupted with things like “How big is the castle?”, “What colour are the unicorn’s eyes?”, “How many warts does the witch have on her chin?”, “Did the puppy run away because it saw the boy who owned it stick his tongue out at his mom?”, “‘They lived happily ever after.’? What does that mean?”, and so on? Hopefully, not at all. Advertisers use catchy phrases and whatnot not just because they want you to buy their product(s), but also because it is human nature to desire to express oneself freely. An arrested mode of expression is no better than logorrhœa. Something I am seeing way too much of here at WP is [citation needed]. It's more annoying than the gaffe to which it refers. Let's say it was somewhere stated that the latest figures on the Thompson case can be found on page 42. And let's say that the "figures" for that particular case were actually to be found on page 41, and not page 42, as was aforestated. So what? It's a no-brainer: just look it up. But those kinds of errors are not common, nor are they opinion-oriented, but the point is, they are minute. Now let's say it was somewhere stated that the latest figures on the Thompson case were contrived with intent to deceive. How would one go about discerning the validity of that? Does it claim to be valid? Do you want to know the answer(s)? The reason I used those two examples of declarative journalism is to illustrate two of the basic natures of that kind of writing. The first statement was one that would be easily rectified. And the second was basically a groundless argument, by itself, that is. Citing is important only for statements that can be cited. Otherwise, let them think what they will. When writing, editing, etc., for the public, we mustn't attempt to squelch the reader's own opinions and curiosity. There are many things which we must “let the reader decide”. Not to make everything a semantic puzzle or a laconic feast of reason and flow of soul, but simply to allow the reader to think for him- or herself. I wholeheartedly agree that we daren't just publicise whatever random sequence of typage our fingers happen to produce. Again, manners are as important on paper as they are in person, but affected writing is a malady cured only through common-sense and that particular universal vernacular which, I believe, is possessed by all good writers, however famous or unknown. That built-in shit-detector of which Hemmingway so spoke (or wrote?). So, from now on, don't send a weasel to catch a weasel and stop being weasels, you weasels! And that includes ferrets and minks and stoats and ermines and martens and all other MUSTELIDS!!!!!

P.S.: ;-) —Strabismus 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Modern historians"

The weasel words "modern historians" is used in Wikipedia to indicate that older recorded historical accounts are untrue. Placing more importance on the opinions of "modern historians" instead of less importance allows adjustments to be generated. People who employ those weasel words then dispute the recorded accounts, and introduce conclusions which are different from the original conclusions that are in the historical accounts which were made at the time when important events took place. The tactic is employed to re-write history by suggesting that older accounts are flawed accounts. GhostofSuperslum 07:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbyguesses 04:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Newbyguesses  ;

in re weasel words ;passive voice Does add weasallynessIMHO ; second person conditional <if you> can be a partial solution ; the word <they> on its own, or as they said etc they did ?? is a weasel word 2 be avoided if possible without damage to intended meaning ; IMHO ; signed ???? Newbyguesses 04:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Newbyguesses

too many examples?

I am wondering - does the article get a bit confusing, and is there confusion between the different types of obfuscation being employed?

The explanation of 'weasely words that confuse me 'given above doesn't quite convince. If the examples under the section Common grammatical generalizations are NOT of weasel words, then it is confusing to have so many examples and right at the end of the article. I think these examples shoud be pruned, and then anything left of the section to be incorporated elsewhere. IMHONewbyguesses 03:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Someone put an original research tag on the examples, and I think I understand why. Yes..."Doesn't Follow" avoids the question, which is weasely, and it's a completely different article. I think "weasel words" are a short list. BrewJay (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

enough examples improve article

Well, those examples (Grammatical generalizations) are retired, and IMHO, the remaining examples that are in section Generalizations using weasel words each add to the article. So,is it about rightish now, example-wise if its on your watchlist? The examples taken out could be retrieved, although there are really heaps of examples at Wikipedia:Avoid Weasel words. Newbyguesses 11:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I should check if all of the examples I moved into non-sequitur fall into that lojikal fallacy. BrewJay (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of edits.

I have reverted all edits by User:Newbyguesses because the article was essentially impossible to read in its current form. Sentences such as this one are completely unencyclopedic in their wording: "The sly, egg-sucking weasel pops up, in those obscure crevices in the written record of the English language, and graces as well his aficionados with characteristic appearences within the pages of the plays of William Shakespeare." And the link associated doesn't even mention the word weasel. Is this a joke? Is he trying to write this so it's impossible to understand? If so, it could one of Wikipedia's longest running and clever forms of vandalism. Take this run-on sentence as an example:

"Professional weaselers have a brimming bag of tricks: the use of tortuous terminology to replace a less ambiguous (albeit more contentious and therefore troublesome) or cost-incurring phrase, the disguising of deliberate omissions, as well as the strategic use of vague generalizations are all sufficiently sophisticated and masterable techniques which can be misused and abused systematically in this way to covertly legitimize the overt aims and camouflage the covert programs of paid prevaricators, who have come to rely on their extended deployment of weaselwords to subtly and ably deflect scrutiny that would otherwise prove to be disadvantageous legitimately or otherwise, to the powers that be."

What? Furthermore, I've never seen so many hidden links: "Clap-trap" links to Category:Games; "copied" to Ape; "and repeated" to Monkey. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 00:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. New to wikipedia, I have yet to have had the chance to have to observe how this process occurs, when objection is made and edits reverted. I will bear your comments in mind in future. Some of what you say I do not quite follow though. How does it make it easier or harder ? (making minor edits?).You do not seem to have had any trouble making reverts? To compare two versions, they are selected on History, and intermediates, not being shown, do not distract? Or, how does that work then as to what you are saying that I am doing wrong here in this way? Which guidelines or policies apply would be helpful, as each of us finds it (I do) hard to get a grip of each and every policy and their strength and connection to other policies, and just where to find and read them on each occasion to find which policy is crucial. Thankyou.Newbyguesses 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zepheus, this is an encyclopaedia and as such we should keep to an encyclopaedic style, however brilliant and essayistic an article may be at first sight. We need to bear the readers in mind who come to Wikipedia to search for and receive the information they are looking for, correct information at that, and not a personally coloured style. An article should be relatively manageable reading, even if editors use professional styles and terms in describing sometimes esoteric subjects, but the test must be ultimately what the uninformed reader makes of it. It is easy for us to use styles in addressing peers who already know what an article is all about. It is, however, those who want to find out about the "parameters" and "paradigms" of this world because they have just come across the words but know next to nothing about them, we need to bear in mind. If this sounds too facile, I am sorry, but for the information seeker, the reverted (Zepheus') version is better.

Sorry, Newbyguesses, I do see your point. One of the Wikipedia guides you might find useful is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and its list of "See also" links. It does go at it rather briskly, but it conveys what you are looking for. Dieter Simon 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou user, for your comment, and suggestions. From posts above, you got this article going in the beginning? Yes, I am happy enough for now with the version reverted to by Z. The previous (where I had improved on this stuff, incorporating most all of it , had got off track), and I won't be doing anything about it presently. I am looking at the policy points you mention (subheading -when you wonder what to do:) If you are interested, you are welcome to visit Newbyguesses/Talk, where I put and was answered a couple/questions about OR, plagierism, POV, humour etc. Food for thought, wikipedia achieves an encyclopediac tone throughout is not the same as wikipedia achieves a uniform tone (unvaried) throughout. If every sentence in every article was exactly fifteen words long, that is not an encyclopedia.TnxNewbyguesses 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have agreed why the article was reverted. Suggestions for now improving it: 1) first para looks a bit like unsourced POV (in those words) 2) Chaplin quote in near beginning 3) subsection on counter/counter/weaselwords? out, unfortunately, as it has just created confusion, even on this talkpage previously, even though it is utterly accurate and well-written and makes a good point or- it gets a better summary explanation as to what it is about, making it a more important and rounded piece, which will fit in somewhere better).tnxNewbyguesses 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to editors: I stated on May 9, 2007, "Is he trying to write this so it's impossible to understand? If so, it could one of Wikipedia's longest running and clever forms of vandalism." I would like to say that this is not an accusation of Newbyguesses. I believe that all of his edits to this article were in good faith, as he has demonstrated himself with his humility on this talk page and cooperation in re-writing the article. - Zepheus <ゼィフィアス> 21:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

authoratative site

weaselwords - 28 AprIf you are fed up with building your capacity to develop synergies with key stakeholders weasel words is a your chance to dob in a language criminal. www.weaselwords.com.au/ - 3k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Googled today, this site is in this article as a primary source on Weasel words, or weaselwords, or weasily words.So, sub-section humour is appropriate? (Look at this source).

And restore the long list at the end?Newbyguesses 08:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk/suggestions

Weasel words supply misinformation, deliberately, either through generalization applied indiscriminately in a discussion, or by disguising the omission of relevant facts, that would undermine the weaseler's position, with convoluted [spin].

• A weasel word is an insult (Polecat,skunk)

• [Weasel words] is the topic of this article

• weasel words suck the meaning out of a discussion

• weaselwords is the name of a website, (majorsourceref)

• weaselling or weaseling, weaseller or weaseler

• weasly and/or weasily, weaseler's or weaseller's

• the [Weasel] is a mustelid/Mustiledea

• [William Shakespeare] is/was [English]

• weasels suck eggs, slyly and surreptitiously

any suggestions, these are mine, thank you. &mdash Newbyguesses 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "renowned", "nationally acclaimed", "premier", etc.?

Words like those sound like advertisements and/or opinions, and thus sound rather weaselly. 204.52.215.107 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PEACOCK. dr.ef.tymac 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

arguably?

I have often been tripped by this mushy word, e.g. The Duke of Omnium is arguably the best jazz harpist of the decade, and wonder whether this would be a weasel word, too (does not say who would so argue). greetz --84.177.72.118 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Conversely the excessive, and therefore redundant use of emphatic adverbs does not result in a well-crafted style which might have had maximum effect:

   * The building was absolutely destroyed (destroyed already implies gone).
   * After the spa treatment she felt completely healed. (healed implies 100% health).
   * It was utterly chaotic on the streets (chaotic already implies no order)."

What place does this have here? Firstly, even if you accept the assertion it still has nothing to do with weasel words. Secondly, there are degrees of destruction, healing and chaos, so the use of the reinforcer to emphasise totality is perfectly acceptable in both meaning and style. It smacks of bee in the bonnet and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.232.183 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup, part II

I've tagged this article with the cleanup template - the introduction is incredibly long and unorganized. I will attempt to clean it up once I do some research on the subject. --Vince | Talk 07:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Word of the day

I don't know if it would add to the notability of the concept and I'm not sure how you would cite it, but "weasel word" is today's "word of the day" on Merriam-Webster's website. [1] --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From history of Weasel word, changes since 19:21, 27 April 2007

(453 intermediate revisions not shown.) Newbyguesses - Talk 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Considered"

I was wondering whether it is correct to label an "X in considered to be Y" without a citation as a weasel word per Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, so i searched this page for "consider".

It is not listed as a weasel word, but this page does have this:

"There are some generalizations which are considered unacceptable in writing."

IMHO this is the mother of weasel phrases, but correct me if i'm wrong. I am probably not the first one who notices it, as the section is already tagged as original research. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging with "non sequitur"?

I think it should be the other way round the "non sequitur(humor)" article should be merged with "weasel word". Weasel words comprise a whole gammut of weaseling, not just the humorous side of weaseling. By all means merge the very short article "n. s. (h.)" with the much larger article and work it in. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Anyway at the moment you are linking the template to the disambiguation page of "non sequitur". Dieter Simon (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If the merger is contemplated with "non sequitur (logic)" then that has become so abstruse, that I can't believe you are addressing readers who have never heard of "non sequitur". They certainly wouldn't look it up in order to find out about weasel words. You are forgetting that this is an encyclopaedia and not a philosophical treatise addressed to your peers, it should be linked to "non sequitur (logic)" by all means, but now you have moved all the examples to this "non sequitur" page it means very little to the person who wants to find out. He/she doesn't want to go through a course of philosophy first in order to find out what he must coming across every day, weaselling. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again it was never opened for discussion before you so high-handedly moved all the examples to such an eccentric choice of an article. Not at all Wikipedian. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Becoming involved with this problem would be beneficial to us." as an example of passive voice

... has the problem that it is not a passive voice construction. --Jayen466 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this out, but I will admit the replacement is not very well written. I wanted to keep the links to the sites about the passive voice but didn't know precisely what to say, so I just added filler for now.72.148.89.221 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)anonymous

Question: Exaggerated Analogies

What is the term for the technique of using a similar but exaggerated analogy to put some spin on a topic? I can't think of any examples for some reason, though... sorry if the question isn't clear. --24.189.101.122 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example (from Urban Dictionary, which actually had a good example):

Jimmy: I moved cause like 3 other people did it first.

Steve: If you were in a room with 10 people and 3 of them did coke, would you do it after?

In that example, Steve is making an analogy that is clearly exaggerated. Just because Jimmy would not use coke if 3 others did it, does not imply that he would not move if 3 other people did it. --24.189.101.122 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How ridiculous do these examples have to be before we give them a miss?

"A drunk hobo once told me" (?). Which hobo, where and how did he know? Just how absurd do these examples have to become before we give them a miss? Why not a stone-cold sober one? Why not a city gent in the City of London? Why not a lieutenant colonel in the army? Also by the very nature of being a drunk hobo, it is most unlikely that we would ever be able to ascertain his identity and therefore would be unable to cite him by name or where it was or where he came from. And does it matter how he knew, it would have been most unlikely his knowledge being quotable. This is one of the most unlikely weasel words I have ever come across. I think. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor examples.

Some of these examples are rather poor because they are only examples of weasel words in certain specific contexts, not in general. I don't want to remove the examples because they could be weasel words in some cases, but I also don't know how to clear it up (because I can't think of what to write -- somebody please feel free to add clarification if you can write it). For example, in the business examples: "... is now 20% cheaper!". This is not an example of weasel words in itself. The example incorrectly implies that any time "...is now X% cheaper!" is said, that it would be weasel words. However, that's only true if it was intentionally vague. "As if our mega-widget wasn't ridiculously cheap last year, it is now 20% cheaper!" is very clear (the mega-widget is 20% cheaper than its price in the previous year). These are not very strong examples, and some are misleading, clarification/cleanup is needed, but I don't know how to word it. --69.112.198.201 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That is and always has been the case. A weasel word is one only if it could be substantiated, but is not; if proof could be established, but is not. If a company claims their product is "now 20% cheaper", and they are not saying "cheaper than what" then, yes, they are weaseling. However, statements such as this are so common that the average person no longer takes much notice of it. It is not right, but who are we to do much about it.

On the other hand, one of the usages which has been cited in this article, such as "people say...", who are we to say that people aren't in fact saying "this". We should be concerned and be careful to denounce something as weaseling if it is just impossible to cite all those voices who are claiming something as in "people say..." and therefore proof could just not be established because so many voices are claiming something. It may quite possibly be true what "people say". Then it would no longer be a weasel word, would it? To make something a weasel word is when it is possible to verify a fact but the verification is not being made. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some Argue

that ED has a way better article on this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.139.123 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

a different type of weasel word

I've noticed a pattern in the grammar of partisan political pundits as found on Olbermann, O'Reilly, many blogs, etc. That pattern is loading a noun clause full of nearly the entirety of the accusation, and leaving a relatively meager verb near the end of the sentence. For example,

The weaselly and equivocating scoundrels at that paragon of poor journalism called FOX News, are frequently wrong.

Now, to discredit the statement one can only pick apart the noun clause, rather than maintain that the sentence is false, as e.g., X are not, in fact, Y.

This seems very weaselly to me, and it seems like a really poor journalism style.

Is there a name for this? Does anyone else consider it weasel words?24.58.63.18 (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PS It's frequently a form of assuming the conclusion, since the noun clause will typically spoil the accusation and make the statement somewhat redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.63.18 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this term "weasel" -- its insulting to contributors

Can we rephrase it somehow? Every time I see a tag "weasel" on somebody's writing it's not merely a criticism but an insult -- it compares a Wikipedian contributor to a rodent. I believe this policy doesn't help Wikipedia overall but contributes to a culture of incivility. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The term refers to the ability of a weasel to suck the contents out of an egg while leaving the shell almost intact. A word or phrase can be called weasely if it contains no intellectual nutrient. This might well have been unintentional on the part of the writer, and it's use is not intended as a personal insult. It certainly should not be used to apply to a person. Rumiton (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the tag "weasely words" which gets attached in Wikipedia to users contributions. It's insulting. It implies the contributor is a weasel because the user's words (or written contributions) are weasely, a rodent, a lowlife animal. I've seen these tags in Wikipedia and I object strongly to them. It lowers the civility of the place. It's a nasty tag. If people think my writing is weasely, a better way to express criticism is to complain about vagueness or emptiness of content, or make anything vague more specific. If the tag remains viable, I urge users to not use it -- use something else. There's enough meanness in Wikipedia already.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I read what you wrote. I agree the term has a meaning. My problem is that some Wikipedia contributors tag other peoples' contributions with the criticism weasel words and, in my view, I find the tag weasel words objectionable, insulting, and contributing to a culture of incivility here in Wikipedia. I've just looked through about 50 articles hunting for the term, and luckily I didn't find it (attached to specific words) -- so this is a good thing if it is used less here in Wikipedia. I did see an instance in which a section was tagged as containing "weasel words". What I'm advocating is that Wikipedia finds a better, less condescending tag than "weasel words", and for users to please refrain from using it, but find a nicer, more positive way to provide constructive criticism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Empty quote?

I have a concern with the Winston Churchill quote in the Origin section. It's a nice enough quote, but how does it relate to the topic at hand. Was he specifically talking about Weasel Words, or was he just talking about politics in general?? Can we tie his quote more directly to Weasels?

"The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning."

WesT (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To me the Churchill quote provides a historic background to the question at hand. Rumiton (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

'Weasel words' sometimes essential for NPOV

Pointing out the obvious here I suppose, but sometimes weasel words (and I really dislike that label, by the way, too pejorative) are entirely appropriate.

I recently beefed up an article about the governor of the Bank of Canada. I found various cites that suggested (but certainly didn't prove, because you can never "prove" anything in economics) that his actions had a lot to do with helping Canada come out of the recession in good shape.

I used phrases like "Carney's actions as the Bank of Canada's governor are said to have played a major role in helping Canada's economy avoid the worst impacts of the financial crisis", followed by a couple of cites substantiating that opinion. Emphasis on "opinion". It's not an objective fact, never will be, not in this particular discipline.

You know? Shaun courtice (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree. If an opinion has been expressed that the subject is a fine chap and a brilliant economist, then we say so, but NPOV mandates that other, perhaps opposite opinions also be explored and presented in the article, weighted according to their prominence. If the praise is universal and a source says so, then we say so too. Vague statements like are said to have played... are always irritating and always suspicious... always weasely. Rumiton (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Extrapolating" section is confusing

This section does not give any specific examples of extrapolation to introduce weasel words to convey deceptive ideas. It only mentions that certain elements of language resemble usage of weasel words. Why does this section even exist when everything discussed here "is a legitimate function of language," "conforms to the standards established by tradition" is "rhetorically valid," and "may also be used justifiably"? None of the examples given in this section show any elements that use weasel words or "weasel language" to convey deceptive ideas. Midtempo-abg (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Unless examples can be found of statements which are misleading due to the use of extrapolation this section should be deleted. I read it with a view to attempting to clarify it, but I was unable to ascertain what the section was attempting to say. - 95.149.91.98 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the editor who wrote the Extrapolating section himself used weasel-words to describe "Extrapolating?" E.g. through the use of the passive voice with an unqualified agent. Oh the irony!--85.12.80.64 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Origin?

There seems to be uncertainity about the origin of this term. The examples used are tenuous at best. Less is more. The word probably came from the idea that people hide behind their words because they don't want to have an honest debate so they effectively run away and hide from the argument like a weasel looking for cover. This section is trying to be too scholarly about something that just developed naturally. Not everything has to have an answer on Wikipedia. Furthermore, i like weasel words. They have their place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremoz (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Empty eggs

The whole section describing the origins of the term 'weasel word' is confusing, difficult to follow and I have doubts about it's accuracy. To say that the expression "derives from the egg-eating habits of weasels", apparently based on a single quotation from Chaplin is misleading. The accepted definition of "weasel" is "a dishonest person who cannot be trusted": "weasel word" suggests a word that has these qualities. Otherwise they might just as easily have become know as empty words or egg-shell words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.132 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Frankly, the explanation sounds really forced and tortured, and obscure to boot, in view of the well-established metaphorical meaning "devious, sneaky (person)" of weasel and derivations, which makes for an obvious source. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Article cartoon image

I love the cartoon weasel image, and it fits perfectly on WP:WEASEL but the tone seems too silly to include in the article page (an encyclopedic article about the weasel word concept). Am I just being pedantic? Technician Fry (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Since it's been there a month, I guess so. 128.59.163.107 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiWeasels

If Wikipedia could offer expert definition and information on any topic, this humble article certainly should have been the best among many. "Many" is of course, a 'weasel word'.

An encyclopedia is, at best, a compendium of ALL knowledge that is worth knowing. "ALL" is not a 'weasel word', but "knowledge" most certainly is, for every finite mind, such as everyone who reads this. Notice that I am trying to define 'weasel words' without using them. It is difficult, and that's the point.

Wikipedia contains some useful knowledge on a wide variety of topics. "Some", "useful", "knowledge", "wide" and "variety" are ALL 'weasel words'.

Wikipedia contains an awful lot of useless knowledge, particularly in the subjects of geography and sport. "an awful lot", "useless", "knowledge" are all 'weasel words'. 96.255.108.117 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)danshawen

Wikpedia is (or should be) the foremost authority on the term 'weasel words'. 'Should', 'foremost', and 'authority' are weasel words.

An encyclopedia is a compendium of useful knowledge. 'Useful', and 'knowledge' are both weasel words.

Wikipedia contains many useful articles on various topics. 'Many', 'useful', and 'various' are all weasel words.

Widipedia contains almost as many useless articles on geography and sport as it does on useful topics. 'Almost', 'many', 'useless', and 'useful' are all weasel words.

Any word whose meaning is ambiguous, any term that does not specify knowledge down to and including atomic structure, or any term that refers to another term in any human languge is a 'weasel word'. Humans are weasels, because all of their knowledge is necessarily incomplete or ambiguous. 96.255.108.117 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Danshawen

Up to 50% off on all products

I'm not a native speaker of English, nor a law expert, but the interpretation of "up to 50% off on all products" as indicating no discounts at all strikes me as surprising and quite extreme. Would native speakers accept this interpretation or would they consider the statement deceiving and unacceptable if no discounts were offered at all?

Whoever repeated the example in the section "In business" did not seem to consider this interpretation, either, so perhaps it's not just me. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

All that statement means, literally, is "No discount will exceed 50%". So I accept the interpretation.

The statement also gives the impression that "Some discounts will be 50%", so, if I noticed that no discount was 50%, I, and most people, would still be angrered by it.

It is legal, but dishonest. Yeatesi (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We can probably avoid confusion entirely if the paragraph asserts that only a token discount would be available. You can see it as "products, which have no discounts above 50%" which would include the null set where nothing is discounted, or logically read it as "products, that are discounted, and that discount does not exceed 50%" which would be false, as it implies that something has a non-zero discount (but doesn't exceed 50%). A store discounting one item by one percent would fulfill the statement no matter how one parses it and would still be incredibly misleading, which satisfies the purpose of the example in every respect. We can even ditch the assertion of the legality of the advertisement (this would be dubious at least under NY law, see NY Pen Law § 190.20), since it's superfluous -- it would mislead consumers but still be truthful, and that's all that we need here. Don't gild the lily. Kw0134 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the common mathematical meaning of "up to n%", and it does not need a citation (someone put a [citation needed] there and it makes the page look laughably pedantic). You could argue that the common math definition isn't appropriate here, which is fair. But a citation isn't going to help: the best case scenario is someone adds a reference to a high school math website, which would be wildly inappropriate on this page. I'd just remove word or phrases until people can agree; the citation request needs to go, though. Heimburg (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this another good example of "weasel words" found in advertising?

I think it would be helpful to add here another blatant example of a misleading but persistent construction in advertising copy, but not sure it falls precisely under the heading of "weasel words." It is a phrase carefully constructed to be so ambiguous as to mislead the reader into thinking it means exactly the opposite of what it actually says. This particular example is quoted from Ricardo Montalban's voiceover during a series of very popular Chrysler car TV commercials during the 1970s:

"...with the look and feel of real leather."

It encourages the listener to believe that the car's seats are made of real leather, at the same time that it really admits that the seats are covered with an ersatz material that has only the look and feel of real leather.

Cumpi (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

not right sorry UHH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knaapjedom (talk • contribs) 11:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)