Editing Weasel word (section)

==Forms==
A 2009 study of [[Wikipedia]] found that most weasel words in it could be divided into three main categories:<ref name="Ganter">{{cite journal|last1=Ganter|first1=Viola|last2=Strube|first2=Michael|title=Finding Hedges by Chasing Weasels: Hedge Detection Using Wikipedia Tags and Shallow Linguistic Features|journal=Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Pape|date=4 August 2009|page=175|url=http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-2044|access-date=11 May 2017|archive-date=27 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227161533/https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P09-2044/|url-status=live}}</ref>
# Numerically vague expressions (for example, "some people", "experts", "many", "evidence suggests")
# Use of the [[passive voice]] to avoid specifying an authority (for example, "it is said")
# Adverbs that weaken (for example, "often", "probably")

Other forms of weasel words may include these:<ref>{{cite web |last1=Spacey |first1=John |title=7 Types of Weasel Words |url=https://simplicable.com/new/weasel-words |website=Simplicable.com |date=29 June 2018 |publisher=Simplicable |access-date=19 June 2022 |archive-date=9 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220709233144/https://simplicable.com/new/weasel-words |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Crilly |first1=Donal |title=Weasel words |url=https://www.london.edu/think/weasel-words |website=London Business School |access-date=19 June 2022 |archive-date=29 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221129001902/https://www.london.edu/think/weasel-words |url-status=live }}</ref>
*[[Formal fallacy|Illogical or irrelevant statements]]
*Use of vague or ambiguous [[euphemism]]s<ref>{{cite news |last1=Long |first1=Rob |title=In war or business, weasel words come back to bite you |url=https://www.thenationalnews.com/in-war-or-business-weasel-words-come-back-to-bite-you-1.422032 |access-date=19 June 2022 |agency=The National |date=11 April 2011 |archive-date=30 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130205903/https://www.thenationalnews.com/in-war-or-business-weasel-words-come-back-to-bite-you-1.422032 |url-status=live }}</ref>
*Use of grammatical devices such as [[Grammatical modifier|qualifier]]s, negation and the [[subjunctive mood]]
*In most languages with one, use of the first person plural pronouns e.g. we, us, our, and ours 
*[[Glittering generality|Glittering or vague generalizations]]

''Generalizing'' by means of [[Quantifier (linguistics)|quantifiers]], such as ''many'', when quantifiable measures could be provided, obfuscates the point being made, and if done deliberately is an example of "weaseling."

''Illogical or irrelevant statements'' are often used in advertising, where the statement describes a beneficial feature of a product or service being advertised. An example is the endorsement of products by celebrities, regardless of whether they have any expertise relating to the product. In non-sequitur fashion, it does not follow that the endorsement provides any guarantee of quality or suitability.

''False authority'' is defined as the use of the passive voice without specifying an actor or agent. For example, saying "it has been decided" without stating by whom, and citation of unidentified "authorities" or "experts," provide further scope for weaseling.  It can be used in combination with the reverse approach of discrediting a contrary viewpoint by glossing it as "claimed" or "alleged."  This embraces what is termed a "semantic [[wikt:cop-out|cop-out]]," represented by the term ''allegedly''.<ref name="ac">{{Cite book
| last       = Garber
| first      = Marjorie B.
| title      = Academic Instincts
| date = 7 September 2003
| publisher  = [[Princeton University Press]]
| isbn       = 978-0-691-11571-9
}} p. 140 "it is alleged"</ref> This implies an absence of ownership of opinion, which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.  The construction "[[mistakes were made]]" enables the speaker to acknowledge error without identifying those responsible.

However, the passive voice is legitimately used when the identity of the actor or agent is irrelevant. For example, in the sentence "one hundred votes are required to pass the bill," there is no ambiguity, and the actors including the members of the voting community cannot practicably be named even if it were useful to do so.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/ |title=Passive Voice |work=The Writing Center |publisher=[[University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]] |access-date=24 December 2013 |archive-date=25 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131225221237/http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://english.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/english/resources/8PassiveVoice.pdf |title=The Passive Voice |work=English and Theatre – Grammar Pages |publisher=[[Acadia University]] |access-date=24 December 2013 |archive-date=25 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131225135555/http://english.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/english/resources/8PassiveVoice.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

The scientific journal article is another example of the legitimate use of the passive voice.  For an experimental result to be useful, anyone who runs the experiment should get the same result.  That is, the identity of the experimenter should be of low importance.  Use of the passive voice focuses attention upon the actions, and not upon the actor—the author of the article.  To achieve conciseness and clarity, however, most scientific journals encourage authors to use the active voice where appropriate, identifying themselves as "we" or even "I."<ref name="BioMedicalEditor">{{cite web | url = http://www.biomedicaleditor.com/active-voice.html | title = Clear Science Writing: Active Voice or Passive Voice? | author = Every, Barbara | date = 5 July 2013 | access-date = 25 June 2014 | archive-date = 18 January 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220118213150/http://www.biomedicaleditor.com/active-voice.html | url-status = live }}</ref>

The ''[[middle voice]]'' can be used to create a misleading impression. For example:
* "It stands to reason that most people will be better off after the changes."
* "There are great fears that most people will be worse off after the changes."
* "Experience insists that most people will not be better off after the changes."

The first of these also demonstrates false authority, in that anyone who disagrees incurs the suspicion of being unreasonable merely by dissenting.  Another example from international politics is use of the phrase "the international community" to imply a false unanimity.

''[[Euphemism]]'' may be used to soften and potentially mislead the audience. For example, the dismissal of employees may be referred to as "rightsizing," "headcount reduction," and "downsizing."<ref name="downsize">{{Cite web
 |title        = Has Downsizing Gone too Far?
 |work         = University of North Florida
 |location     = Jacksonville, Florida, US
 |date         = December 1995
 |url          = http://www.iopsych.org/downsize.htm
 |access-date  = 5 October 2007
 |archive-date = 28 September 2007
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20070928123345/http://www.iopsych.org/downsize.htm
 |url-status   = dead
}}</ref> [[Jargon]] of this kind is used to describe things [[euphemism|euphemistically]].<ref name="BusinessBuzzwords">{{cite web| url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227462739 | title = Business Buzzwords: Rightsizing, Downsizing, Re-Engineering, De-Layering | author = Pop, Anamaria-Mirabela | date = July 2011 | access-date = 4 March 2022}}</ref>

''Restricting information'' available to the audience is a technique sometimes used in [[Advertising|advertisements]].  For example, stating that a product "...&nbsp;is now 20% cheaper!" raises the question, "Cheaper than what?"  It might be said that "Four out of five people prefer&nbsp;..." something, but this raises the questions of the size and selection of the sample, and the size of the majority. "Four out of five" could actually mean that there had been 8% for, 2% against, and 90% indifferent.