Weasel Words on Wikipedia: What They Are and How to Fix Them

On Wikipedia, a weasel word is a vague phrase that sounds like a specific, authoritative claim but names no one and points to nothing. “Some critics say,” “experts agree” and “it is widely believed” are the classic cases. Editors flag them, tag them and delete them, and if they appear on a page about your company or your own biography, they signal that the page is unreliable. The fix is almost never a synonym. It is a named source, a date and a precise claim.

This guide covers what the term means, where it comes from, the examples editors look for, how weasel words differ from peacock terms, and how to rewrite a vague sentence so it survives review.

TL;DR

• A weasel word creates the impression that something meaningful was said while leaving the source and scope unstated. Wikipedia’s Manual of Style lists many of them under unsupported attributions.
• Peacock terms such as “leading,” “innovative” and “award-winning” are a related problem: promotional praise with no verifiable fact behind it.
• Wikipedia has no banned-word list. A phrase is acceptable when the article immediately names a reliable source that supports it.
• The repair is the same every time: replace the vague subject with a named publication or person, add the date, and state only what the source actually says.
• For company and executive pages, this is the difference between a page that stays up and one that collects cleanup tags.

Table of Contents

• What counts as a weasel word on Wikipedia
• Weasel word examples, grouped by how they fail
• Where the phrase comes from
• Weasel words versus peacock terms
• It is the evidence, not the word
• Hedging is not always a flaw
• How to rewrite a vague claim: a five-step method
• What this means for company, executive and founder pages
• Our perspective: neutral writing is the credibility asset
• Fixing weasel wording on an existing page
• What about “Amazon weasel words”?
• A quick pre-submission checklist
• FAQ
• Sources

What counts as a weasel word on Wikipedia

Wikipedia’s own article on the term describes a weasel word, also called an anonymous authority, as a word or phrase that suggests something specific has been said when only a vague, ambiguous or irrelevant claim has been communicated. The same article notes that the vagueness lets a writer later deny any specific meaning, because none was ever stated.

The Manual of Style puts these phrases under the heading of unsupported attributions. The phrases it asks editors to watch include “some people say,” “many scholars state,” “it is believed,” “experts declare” and “it is often reported.”

The shared flaw is that the reader cannot check anything. Who says? How many? When? Based on what? A sentence that cannot answer those four questions asks for trust it has not earned.

Weasel word examples, grouped by how they fail

The Wikipedia article on the term cites a 2009 study of Wikipedia that sorted most weasel wording into three families. Those families are a practical way to spot problems in your own drafts.

A few more patterns show up constantly on business pages:

• Invented consensus: “The company is widely regarded as a pioneer in its field.” Regarded by whom?
• Borrowed authority: “Industry analysts have praised its growth.” Which analysts, in what publication?
• Vague research claims: “Studies show the platform reduces costs.” Which study, and who funded it?
• Hidden qualifiers: “Reportedly valued at over $1 billion.” Reported where? If the source is a named outlet, say so.

The term has been applied this broadly for a long time, and the writing advice is the same in journalism, science and advertising: say who, say what, say when.

Where the phrase comes from

The earliest documented print use is in Stewart Chaplin’s 1900 short story “The Stained Glass Political Platform,” published in The Century Magazine. A reader’s letter in The New York Times of June 3, 1916 traced the phrase back to that story, after Theodore Roosevelt had used it in a St. Louis speech.

Roosevelt helped make the phrase familiar to Americans. His example was the word “voluntary” attached to “universal,” a qualifier that quietly empties the larger word. The record does not show that he coined it, so “popularized” is the accurate verb.

The image behind the term is the weasel that sucks the contents out of an egg and leaves a shell that looks intact. A Los Angeles Times piece from 1986 uses that picture to describe language with an intact appearance and nothing inside. That is exactly how Wikipedia editors read a sentence like “experts say the company is a leader.”

Weasel words versus peacock terms

People search for both, and editors treat them as neighbors. Weasel words hide the source. Peacock terms inflate the subject.

The Manual of Style calls puffery language that promotes a subject without conveying verifiable information, and Wikipedia contributors know such words as peacock terms. Its list includes “leading,” “innovative,” “world-class,” “renowned,” “prestigious,” “award-winning” and “cutting-edge.” The guidance is to demonstrate importance with facts and attribution rather than declare it.

Here is how the two overlap in one sentence:

Acme is a widely respected, innovative leader in logistics software.

“Widely respected” is a weasel phrase: no one is named. “Innovative” and “leader” are peacock terms: pure assertion. A neutral rewrite would give the reader something to check:

In 2025, Acme was named to the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 list, according to Deloitte’s published ranking.

(That example is illustrative of structure, not a claim about any real company.)

Notice that the rewrite is shorter on adjectives and longer on facts. Wikipedia readers, and the editors who patrol new pages, prefer it that way.

It is the evidence, not the word

A common misunderstanding is that Wikipedia keeps a list of forbidden words and that avoiding them guarantees approval. It does not work that way. The Manual of Style assesses wording through neutrality, verifiability and the ban on original research, and it says quotations should be reproduced faithfully even when they contain problematic language.

So the same phrase can pass in one place and fail in another:

• “Critics say the product is overpriced” fails if no critic is identified.
• “The Wall Street Journal’s reviewer wrote that the product was overpriced” works, provided the source says so and the article represents it accurately.

This is why running a draft through a word blacklist proves nothing. A page can contain none of the usual suspects and still be promotional, because every sentence rests on the company’s own press releases. Equally, a sentence containing “some” or “many” can be fine when a reliable source immediately follows and supports it.

Hedging is not always a flaw

Careful hedging and weasel wording are different things. A peer-reviewed analysis of scientific writing, indexed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, discusses words such as “may,” “might,” “could” and “suggest.” These signal honest uncertainty, but they become misleading when they blur the line between evidence and conjecture, turning inference into apparent fact.

The lesson for executives and communications teams is practical. Separate what a source proves from what you would like readers to infer. If a source says a technique “may” improve outcomes, the Wikipedia sentence should say it may, and attribute it. If you remove the hedge, you have overstated the source. If you add confidence the source lacks, you have broken verifiability.

How to rewrite a vague claim: a five-step method

1. Find the claim’s real source. If you cannot locate a reliable, independent publication that says it, the sentence should go.
2. Name the speaker. Replace “critics” or “analysts” with the publication or person, as the source names them.
3. Add the date and scope. “In a March 2025 profile” is checkable. “Recently” is not.
4. State only what the source states. Do not upgrade “one of the faster-growing firms” into “the fastest-growing firm.”
5. Let the fact carry the weight. If revenue, a funding round, a patent or an award demonstrates significance, report that and cite it. Drop the adjective.

Here is the progression for a typical founder bio.

When a claim is specific but the source is thin, an article may carry a cleanup tag, and sourcing disputes tend to land on the talk page. Rewriting before submission avoids the delay.

What this means for company, executive and founder pages

Pages about living people and businesses get more scrutiny than most, because editors know the subject often has an interest in how it reads. Three habits cause the most trouble.

• Writing from your own materials. Your about page, press releases and sponsored posts can state who you are, but they cannot establish significance. Independent coverage does that.
• Importing marketing language. Taglines like “trusted by thousands” read as advertising. Replace them with a figure and where it was reported.
• Over-attributing to the crowd. “Many users love it” is the same flaw dressed as social proof.

We see the pattern often. A draft starts with a founder’s own narrative, and the first thing that has to change is the voice: from persuasion to reporting. If your page does not yet exist, the sourcing question comes first: whether independent, reliable coverage exists in enough depth to meet Wikipedia’s notability threshold. A Notability & Eligibility Audit answers that before anyone writes a word. For a walkthrough of the full process, see our guide to creating a Wikipedia page for your business.

Our perspective: neutral writing is the credibility asset

Trust is the currency of modern business, and a Wikipedia page is one of the few places where it cannot be bought with adjectives. We work exclusively on Wikipedia and Wikidata, and the lesson that repeats across every page we draft is this: the sentences that sound most flattering are the ones that most often get a page into trouble.

Editors do not read your page the way a customer reads a brochure. They ask of each line whether an independent source supports it and whether the wording is proportionate to that source. A phrase like “industry leader” fails the first test before the second begins.

So we write the other way around. We collect the independent coverage first, then build each statement from what the sources say, and attribute opinion to the people who hold it. The result reads plainer than marketing copy, and that is deliberate. A plain, verified page does the job that matters: when an investor, a journalist or an AI answer engine looks you up, what they find is checkable. Our approach is built on that, and it is why we focus on first-submission quality rather than rewriting after rejection.

The same discipline applies after publication. Vague or promotional additions creep back in, from well-meaning employees and from outside editors alike, which is why monitoring matters as much as drafting.

— Amaury

Fixing weasel wording on an existing page

If a page about you or your company already carries a “weasel words” tag or similar, resist the urge to edit it yourself in a hurry. Editors with a conflict of interest are expected to be transparent and to propose changes rather than push them through, so the way you handle it matters.

A sensible sequence:

1. Read the tagged passages and note which phrases lack a named source.
2. Search for independent coverage that supports, corrects or contradicts each claim.
3. Replace unsupported sentences with attributed ones, or propose the change on the article’s talk page with your sources.
4. Remove peacock adjectives and let the cited facts speak.
5. Watch the page afterward for reversions and new promotional additions.

Our Content Editing & Optimization service starts from $500 and covers this kind of sourcing and neutrality cleanup. For pages that need ongoing protection, we offer 24/7 page monitoring, and for pages that are inaccurate or negative, reputation management. Neither of those two has a published price, so contact us for a quote.

If you are starting from nothing, Wikipedia Page Creation starts from $2,000, and each article is researched and sourced to meet Wikipedia’s notability, neutrality and verifiability guidelines. For why this matters at the executive level, read why every CEO needs a Wikipedia page in 2026.

What about “Amazon weasel words”?

Some readers arrive here searching for Amazon weasel words. That is not a Wikipedia category or an official Amazon term. In an ecommerce context people use it informally for evasive product-listing language: unsupported superlatives, unclear “best” claims, or carefully qualified performance claims that give an impression without a measurable fact.

The Wikipedia standard applies the same logic. Clear attribution, reliable sourcing and neutral wording turn a vague claim into one a reader can check. If a listing says “up to 50% faster,” the question is the same as on Wikipedia: faster than what, measured by whom?

A quick pre-submission checklist

Before a draft goes in, scan it for these:

• Every “some,” “many,” “most” or “several” either has a number and source or is gone.
• No sentence relies on “experts,” “critics,” “observers” or “analysts” without naming one.
• Passive constructions (“is considered,” “has been described as”) name who did the considering or describing.
• Praise adjectives are removed or placed in a direct, attributed quotation.
• Every claim about awards, rankings, funding or growth carries a citation to an independent, reliable publication.
• Quotes are reproduced exactly as printed.
• The tone would hold up if the subject were a competitor.

FAQ

What are some examples of weasel words on Wikipedia?

Common ones include “some people say,” “many scholars state,” “it is believed,” “experts declare,” “research has shown” and “it is often reported.” Each suggests an authority without naming it. They are acceptable only when the article immediately identifies a reliable source that supports the statement.

Are peacock terms the same as weasel words?

No, though editors treat them together. Weasel words obscure who made a claim, while peacock terms such as “renowned” or “world-class” praise the subject without evidence. Wikipedia’s guidance is to replace both with facts and attribution.

Does Wikipedia ban certain words?

No. The Manual of Style lists words to watch, not words to forbid. What decides the matter is whether the statement is neutral, verifiable and supported by a reliable source, and quotations stay faithful to the original even if the wording is loaded.

How do I avoid weasel words in my own writing?

Ask who said it, when, and where it was published, then write that down. Replace “experts say” with the named expert or publication, give the date, and keep the claim no stronger than the source. If you cannot find a source, remove the claim.

Where did the term “weasel words” come from?

The earliest documented print use is Stewart Chaplin’s 1900 short story in The Century Magazine. Theodore Roosevelt popularized the phrase in a 1916 speech, but the record does not show he invented it.

Sources

• Weasel word, Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch
• Origin of “Weasel Words,” The New York Times, June 3, 1916
• Hedging, Weasel Words, and Truthiness in Scientific Writing, JSLS 2018
• Ferreting Out the Weasel Words, Los Angeles Times, 1986

Recommended

• How to Edit a Wikipedia Page: Rules and Process
• How to Translate a Wikipedia Article: Full Guide
• How to Create a Wikipedia Page for Your Business