Talk:Euphemism/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Euphemism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Remove specific examples

This article needs major cleanup. Specificially, I propose removing all (or most) of the specific euphemisms, which could be relocated in a List of euphemisms. This article should just focus on the concept of euphemism, in my opinion; a reader need not eat 200 examples to get the idea. EventHorizon talk 07:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By all means: the sooner the better. A handful of examples are all that are necessary. Nohat 08:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Example lists might be broken out of this were a lengthy article, but it's not, and there really aren't 200 examples here. This article is on my watchlist, and I periodically swing through and crop non-euphemisms and non-common euphemisms. I certainly don't want this to be more list than article, but I see no harm in having the lists too. Denni ☯ 00:55, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

List of euphemisms: How do you like it? --Damian Yerrick 19:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the lists with the article. You may want to go through the article and patch up some of the holes you left (ie, you removed all the text for religious euphemisms, leaving a title hanging in mid-air. Denni ☯ 22:22, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I agree with denni; it seems unlikely to me that somebody would search for a list of euphemisms and not want to read this article, or vice-versa. The list and the article text should remain intact. I also agree if the list approached say, 200, then a separate list would be warranted. However as the article reads today, I feel it should remain "as is". Jerry lavoie 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't senior (as in senior citizen) an euphemism to "old or elderly"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.240.184 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I cropped the following example: "Let us not forget the most innocent sounding euphemism of them all, "sonderbehandlung", translated as "special treatment", and what that meant to European Jewery and others in the period 1940/45.^{[clarification needed]}". I think it's a fine example, but needs neutrality, elucidation, and a reference. Eleven even (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are euphemisms for menstruation under the heading "Sexual euphemisms", since all the other examples under this heading relate to sexual act, not the sexual organs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.67.45 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody is sneakily inserting their opinions on the United States' foreign policy: Referring to the "Department of Defence," one author says that it is better described as the "Department of War." This point is debatable, and seems out of place here. Additionally, someone states that "Peace process" is defined as: "Whatever furthers the foreign policy agenda of the US, regardless of peacefulness." As a teacher, I can tell you that biased entries like that are a big part of the reason many schools reject Wikipedia as a valid way to gain information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.236.102 (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The example "department of defense" and "department of war" isn't an arbitrary opinion of a Wikipedia editor; it's brought up so frequently in both academic and popular sources it's practically archetypal. "Peace process" isn't defined as such. The distance between the denotation of a word/phrase used as a euphemism and that which it's standing in for is precisely the point of a euphemism (capitalizing on connotation and framing). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this article doesn't have serious problems and not saying there's no bias, but I disagree with the way you're characterizing it here.

Perhaps it's worth spending a few minutes talking about Wikipedia in class -- how it works, the rules for editing intended to prevent biased writing, and how people don't always stick to those rules...but that, most importantly, that even your students can take it upon themselves to fix it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Is there any objection to my setting up automatic archiving for this talk page? It is overly long, with stale items from many years ago still present. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I setup an auto-archiver with User:MiszaBot. I hope I did it right, but the article already had one archive. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Adjustments made. Time increased to avoid excessively swift thread disappearance; next archive renumbered to 2 for fresh start (ancient existing archive no. 1 is poorly formatted); added archive box. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Detailed tag

I've trimmed the section on religious profanity and removed the tag Chrismorey (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Profanity section

Text currently reads "Most sexual terms and expressions, even technical ones, either remain unacceptable for general use or have undergone radical rehabilitation" with a citation needed flag. I read this as "most either either remain unacceptable or have become acceptable." I'm not sure what citation is warranted for a statement like "X is either true or it isn't." Does the sentence add anything to the paragraph, or ought it be removed (along with the citation request)? —Salton Finneger (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "radical rehabilitation" but I read it as "either sexual terms remain unacceptable or they have undergone such a transformation that they are barely recognized as such." A prime example would be "to suck" as in "this sucks" which is pretty much used by first-graders without any parents panicking in light of the sexual nature of the expression. Were the same child to say "this makes my fucking cock fall off" to complain about a disagreeable situation, I'm sure a greater percentage of parents would object. --Mudd1 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Clearing" doesn't HAVE to mean killing in a military context

Capturing the enemy is almost always another desirable outcome, while causing the enemy to retreat is (sometimes much) less desirable but still acceptable. "Neutralize" can also mean to wound to the point of rendering combatants incapable of resisting, or arresting them in a law enforcement situation. "Clearing" and "neutralizing" certainly are euphemistic, but "search and kill" also doesn't cover all desirable outcomes. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Profanity itself" section

In this section, an additional example might be Gore Vidal's book Myron, where he replaced specific sexual terms with the names of the US Supreme Court Justices who had voted to censor certain writings they thought 'pornographic', maybe? Seems a rather unique form of euphemism.

Also, the practice in Victorian days of leaving 'questionable' passages in Classical texts untranslated (in Latin) might be similar. (I do see that this article is approaching the level of 'too many examples', these seem to be slightly different from those currently in the article.) Thoughts? T-bonham (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Others

Hmm..under the section "Others", not sure if "challenged" is a euphemism. Some of these expressions, involving the use of the word "challenged", may have fallen off the euphemism treadmill and become offensive. Aspaa (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

American military euphemisms

The statement that "armies talk of "neutralising" or "clearing" enemy combatants, which means to kill them" is not entirely correct. Firstly the use of euphemisms for deaths or torture are primarily American. Secondly whilst neutralizing the enemy may be seen by the media as a euphemism for killing, it is actually not a euphemism at all. To neutralize a threat means precisely that. "Clearing enemy combatants" is not a term that is widely used - in fact I have never heard it.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Neutralizing" CAN mean killing, but not always. If the enemy surrenders or is merely wounded to the point of presenting no resistance, that does not mean they will then be summarily executed. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Or if they're caught in a snare. Or floating in a bubble. Probably not so common offscreen. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Notes of Frequency

There is a lot of notes on frequency of usage, but they are uncited, and perhaps very subjective. 67.175.197.150 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

James Herriot said this?

There's a statement in here saying, "for example the author James Herriot recorded that he ran into a difficulty when, talking to an animal's owner, he wanted to refer to "putting (the animal) to sleep" literally, i.e. anaesthetising it for a while.[citation needed]". I've read all of Herriot's books and the biography by his son and have not come across this assertion at all. Where did you find it? It says "citation needed" and it does need one in order to keep this information in the article. Otherwise, it is NOT VERIFIABLE and should be removed. Why does Wikipedia even allow statements like this in an article when it has not been verified and is probably NOT TRUE?

No need to get your shorts in a bunch. If the "citation needed" tag has been there a while, and there's been no response--delete the sentence with an edit summary saying: "unverified, no citation" . As I will have done by the time you read this.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ruthless insistence on citations

This page keeps getting expanded with unnecessary examples, often wrong ones, like mistaking irony or circumlocution for euphamism. At this point I am going to insist on cites, police the page for uncited examples, and start ruthlessly deleting any sentence without a footnote. Well most of them anyway. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done reducing the page. Now I will police it for a while. Added euphamisms need to serve a purpose existing examples do not currently serve, and they need a cite. Or off goes their head.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Nazi euphemisms, the nastiest ones of all that even make diametric lies out of words or phrases, belong in their category. The links leave no question about what Schutzhaft(protective custody -- protection of the State and Party from the continued freedom of pariahs), Evakuierung (as if people were being taken out of danger to safety but instead enslaved or exterminated), Sonderbehandlung (Nazi "special treatment", far from privileged exemption from nasty situations was typically summary execution), the rhetorically-cloudy cloudy Nacht und Nebel of disappearance of a captive, and above all the bureaucratic obfuscation Endlösung der Judenfrage for the extermination of the Jews. Unfortunate people who were greeted with the slogan Arbeit Macht Frei were more likely to die than to earn freedom. The Nazis kept the Holocaust and slave-labor system well hidden from not only the victims (who might have struck back had they known) and the German people who might have become queasy about their government. This is very different from the threat that Adolf Hitler made toward the Jews on the eve of the invasion of Poland -- that bad behavior by the Jews would result the annihilation of world Jewry. Hitler himself could be extremely blunt when he made a threat, but when he was doing his worst he preferred to seem innocent.

Surely someone could cite William Shirer or Victor Klemperer for such linguistic fraud. Need they specifically classify those words or phrases as euphemisms?

How about the usual formal sentence for persons doomed by Stalinist "justice" -- "Ten years imprisonment without the right of correspondence". Long before the ten years were over, the person so sentenced was never going to correspond with anyone -- because he was dead.

As for the (now void) section of the Constitution of the United States that permitted the slave trade until 1808 -- every competent civics or history teacher in the US as well as high-school kids brighter than the average know exactly what it means.

But even without murder one can discuss some of the code words for racism infamous in the American South (like "separate but equal") and Apartheid-era South Africa (like "separate development").Pbrower2a (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes documenting established and common euphemisms would avoid errors. Separate but equal, for instance, was not a euphemism. It was a legal doctrine promulgated by the US Supreme Court in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896), enforced for decades, now discredited and overruled. German euphemisms beglong on the German language wikipedia; English translations of the most infamous ones ( like "final solution of the Jewish question") if footnoted--IF footnoted--might be useful here.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Metaphors

I'm not sure about the examples given for metaphors as being euphemisms, because I think these phrases could be potentially offensive in some circumstances e.g. I would not go up to a bank or post office cashier clerk and say I was "beating [my] meat" or that I liked to "take a dump". I think that would still be inappropriate and, at least potentially, offensive. As an euphemism is an "inoffensive way of referring to an offensive thing", I would not therefore define it to include examples of metaphors that are not inoffensive but, instead, at least in some circumstances, are offensive and therefore more dysphemisms rather than euphemism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspaa (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "affirmative action" from Common Examples

I'm removing "affirmative action" from the list of common examples. It is controversial -- to say the least -- to call that a euphemism. The cited sources are all opinion pieces in newspapers or political blogs, which are far from authoritative on this issue.

I think politically controversial examples should really be avoided in the common examples list. Some of the other entries could also be considered for removal of that reason. Liiiii (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

On a seconds thought the Economist Style Guide (which was one of the sources) can be considered to have some authority on this issue. But it is still a controversial and therefore unsuitable example Liiiii (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverting becuase it is not controversial that it is a euphamism; merely the practice iteslf is controversial. The sources, and in particular the Economist are unimpeachable.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 17:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The example is very unsuitable and should be removed.

It is a common behaviour to call a political practice which one oppose for a euphemism. Here is an academic article which say exactly that, that "euphemism" tend to be used by those who oppose the policies describes by the term "affirmative action".
That is in it self a sufficient reason for removing the example. Having it in the list is to take a political side. There should not be controversial examples in the list.
The sources are very weak, all of them are examples of the behaviour described in 1. The only one that have a slight bit of authority is the Economist Style Guide, but that is far from sufficient for establishing that it is uncontroversial to call this an euphemism.

Liiiii (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. I note this editor is a computer programmer in Sweden. I am curious whether Sweden has a policy akin to American affirmative action (or British 'positive discrimination,' which I would argue is not euphemistic) and if so, what it's called? As to the cited Berkely Women's Law Journal--a woman's law journal is openly partisan advocacy rather than a neutral source. Regardless, I can find no place it denies affirmative action is a euphamism. It says here: "To its critics, affirmative action is both a euphemism for discrimination against white men and a system that bureaucratizes the entire society at the cost of meritocratic decision making; it is a symbol for all that has gone wrong with American society since the sixties. To its supporters, it is a first step towards remedying the crime of slavery and eliminating the discriminatory preferences that have guaranteed white men the easiest paths to wealth and power; it is a symbol of justice, and a promise of a future of hope. . . . For all of the debate, all of the court decisions discussing affirmative action, and all of the articles and books on the subject, there is no consensus on what the term "affirmative action" means." The article goes on to explore five "models" of what it might mean or better put--what it does. To counter the six sources cited in this article's footnote, four from journalism and two from books--one book explicitly on "Neutral translations" which abjures euphamism--one would need to find reliable sources saying it is NOT a euphemism (however you define what affirmative action does, and regardless of whether pro or con).ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

PS--The cite does, however, show a shortcoming in the article's description of affirmative action: it should be "women and minorities" rather than just race-based. I will change the description accordingly. Whether to add this useful article cite to a perhaps already over-extended footnote listing citations I leave to editor Liiiii who found the interesting and informative article. I am not one who thinks partisan artciles are to be excluded just for being partisan, if the position is researched, well informed and well documented.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear about what I wanted to say with that link to the journal article. I linked to it because it said so clear, in a formal context, that opponents of "affirmative action" policies tend to claim that it is an euphemism, while supporters do not.

And that is my point: That it is politically controversial to call it an euphemism. And that controversial examples should not go in the "Common Examples" list. I am not trying to establish whether the term is an euphemism or not, just that this question is controversial.

About the sources: Four of them are opinion pieces in newspapers, they have no authority whatsoever on this issue and should be removed whatever the fate of the "affirmative action" example. If anything, they exemplify my point about opponents calling the term an euphemism. This is also the case with the book by Reza el al, which is markedly opposed to such polices. Left with no apparent rhetoric reasons for the calling "euphemism" are The Economist Style Guide and book by Darwish. And I really don't think they are sufficient for establishing that it is uncontroversial to call the term an euphemism.

Even if most people didn't consider the term to be an euphemism it would be hard to find examples of them explicitly stating this. They would just use the term without mentioning anything about euphemisms. And you don't doubt that there are hundreds of such texts, do you?

I care about this issue because there is a constant risk of editors' personal political opinions affecting things like the choice of examples. Such things should really be uncontroversial. I think that is can be established that calling "affirmative action" an euphemism is controversial. It should therefore not go in "Common Examples".

PS: In Sweden a term which translates to something like "positive special treatment" is used. To me this sounds at least a bit less nonsensical than "affirmative action".

PPS: I think a section about how political forces try to introduce euphemisms, while also calling terms their opponents use for euphemisms, would be very interesting! In such a section I think "affirmative action" as well as the other controversial entries in the "Common Examples" list would be great examples. But I don't think they belong in the list, where you can't explain the complexity of these issues.

PPPS: The reason things are called euphemisms in political rhetoric is that an euphemism is not just a silly or overly positive term. It is a pleasant term for something unpleasant or offensive (Source: Merriam-Webster). This is also why it is controversial to call a term for a political policy an euphemism, even if the term is very silly.

Liiiii (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Having given this a bit more thought I realise that I have missed the most important point in this issue.

The most important point is this:

Claiming that something is a euphemism is not a factual statement. It is a value statement. Because claiming that a term is an euphemism implies a claim that the "true" term for that same thing would be something unpleasant or offensive. (See e.g. Merriam-Webster or Cambridge Dictionaries.)

This is why it is so common to claim that terms are euphemisms in political rhetoric. And this is why it doesn't matter how many such claims you can find. They express only a value held by the author, not a fact.

And this is also why it is totally inappropriate to have terms that are used for controversial political policies in "Common Examples". They should be removed for this article to have a neutral point of view.

Liiiii (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting exegesis. Though I do not agree that all use of euphamism implies a perjorative, a belittling by the user of the euphamism. I leave to philosophers the distinction between fact and values--if there is a meaningful distinction when we are talking about a descriptive word like euphamism. A euphamism is an unwillingness to look something in the face, and call it what it is. "Positive special treatment," the rough translation of the Swedish equivalent policy (for which I am grateful to editor Liiiii) is not a euphamism. It is a direct statement, it says what's going on. Special treatment, for positive purposes. Likewise the British version "positive discrimination," also not a euphamism. It says what it is: discrimination, for positive purposes. Contrast these with the American "affirmative action." The six sources have it right: affirmative action is a euphamism because it avoids direct statement; avoids looking it in the face. To the point about excluding politically sensitive euphemisms, to the contrary: they are useful exactly because political sensitivities these days seem to be so much more acute than any others. As acute as sexual sensitivities once were. In Victorian times no writer would write and no publisher would print the anatomical term penis, or the slang term cock. "Male member" was a Victorian euphamism, from the Latin membrum virile (used so often it became a substitution in its own right). Victorians could not talk about sexual matters without euphemism--but race? Joseph Conrad titled a novel "The Nigger of the Narcissus," a word which now offends us more than cock would have offended a Victorian. Rudyard Kipling wrote without embarassment about the "White Man's Burden." So today the situation is reversed. We are fairly open about all things sexual, but acutely embarassed about racial distinctions. Perhaps one might step back and ask oneself if we are too embarassed to look a certain euphamism in the face, and call it what it is? ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

PS--I forgot to add the important point that this is not about conservatives calling it a euphamism becuse they don't like it. Americans cannot call it what it is--well intentioned discrimination-- because if we did, it would violate the American Constitution 14th Amendment. The British and Swedes do not suffer that inhibition. It was not conservatives who invented the euphemism affirmative action: it was proponents of the policy. The jurisprudential and linguistic twists and turns to dodge our constitutional prohibition on discrimination are discussed to some extent here.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Euphemism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925185914/http://worf.eh.doe.gov/ihp/chron/A43.PDF to http://worf.eh.doe.gov/ihp/chron/A43.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Euphemism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Climate change?

Thanks to the editor Manul who added climate change/global warming to the list--because that editor footnoted the term. The source does indeed call climate change a euphamism for global warming. However, I think the source is wrong. The huge snowstorms in Boston this winter for instance, are said to be a result of warmer Atlantic ocean water vapor, meeting cold air pulled down by changing wind patterns, here. So the "warming" causes blizzards. Climate change is a better description than warming, not a euphamism. But I am leaving it in for now because of the heartening and commendable decision to footnote.

Source is wrong because global warming is the root of the problem or we should not mention it because it is euphemism? In other words you say that "climate change" does not cover up the "global warming" because it does? Please, be specific. --Javalenok (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What Is the Difference Between "Climate Change" and "Global Warming"?

"Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average temperature.

"Climate change" refers to any long-term change in Earth's climate, or in the climate of a region or city. This includes warming, cooling and changes besides temperature. --From NASA defintions here

For instance: this academic study says global warming is producing more lake-effect snow. Winters get harsher because the air is warmer, and warm air carries more moisture. Global warming may be causing climate change (including fiercer winters with more snow)--but they are two different things. One is not a euphamism for the other, despite the (one) source offering a contrary opinion.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lecture us better about non-euphemistic meanings of euphemisms from your list of examples, prove that they exist in your list only by mistake. "Presence" means a lot of different things, for instance. You do not call military occupation `a presence`, therefore. You must remove this word from the list of euphemisms. --Javalenok (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 'affirmative action' as an example

Hi, (i'm making a new section because when I try to add to the previous talk page discussion on this anything I typed when trying to edit only that section auto deleted, which is very weird and appears to only be happening on that section ok wikipedia for me.)

Placing 'affirmative action' as an example of a euphemism is not NPOV. In the example that you gave the meaning of affirmative action is described as contested, with one side arguing that it is a euphemism as part of their criticisms of it.

"To its critics, affirmative action is both a euphemism for discrimination against white men and a system that bureaucratizes the entire society at the cost of meritocratic decision making; it is a symbol for all that has gone wrong with American society since the sixties. To its supporters, it is a first step towards remedying the crime of slavery and eliminating the discriminatory preferences that have guaranteed white men the easiest paths to wealth and power; it is a symbol of justice, and a promise of a future of hope. . . . For all of the debate, all of the court decisions discussing affirmative action, and all of the articles and books on the subject, there is no consensus on what the term "affirmative action" means."

Placing affirmative action in the list of examples therefore violates wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view as it pushes the point of view of affirmative action's critics as opposed to the view of its supporters.

That there are supporters and critics who would classify affirmative action as a euphemism or who would object to it being referred to it as such show that it is inappropriate to include in the list of common examples as it is controversial in a way that none of the other examples are eg 'passed away', 'adult entertainment'. None of the other examples are used by critics of a subject to advance a certain perspective on that subject in a way that would be contested by the subject's supporters - ie no one objects to referring to dying as 'passed away'.

Because of this I believe that including 'affirmative action' in the list of common examples of euphemisms violates NPOV and so should be removed. I will give you the courtesy of waiting a few days for you to respond before removing it. Best, F . 51.6.173.175 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've now removed affiramtive action as an example as I've waited a few days and not received any response or counterargument. Best, F. 51.6.173.175 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussed and resolved 16 motnhs ago. See above. "To counter the six sources cited in this article's footnote, four from journalism and two from books -- one book explicitly on "Neutral translations" which abjures euphamism -- one would need to find reliable sources saying it is NOT a euphemism (however you define what affirmative action does, and regardless of whether pro or con." and: "It was not conservatives who invented the euphemism affirmative action: it was proponents of the policy. The jurisprudential and linguistic twists and turns to dodge our constitutional prohibition on discrimination are discussed to some extent here." ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying that it is not npov because your list of references establish that it is a consensus that 'affirmative action' is in fact a euphemism? My argument is not that your references are not reliable sources, it is that these sources only depict one side of an argument and so presenting only them violates wikipedia's policy maintaining a npov, specifically that only presenting the argument that 'affirmative action is euphemism' does not demonstrate balance Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance.

Wikipedia's policy on balance requires that Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. I do not believe that the the prominence of the position that -'affirmative action is a euphemism' is so clear and undisputed that the contradictory position that -'referring to alternative action as euphemism is an attempt to discredit it by its political opponents' should not also be presented in order to maintain balance to adhere to wikipedia's standards.

That said, I do not think presenting both of these arguments in the short space of a list of common examples of euphemisms is appropriate for this page or necessary to communicate what a euphemism is to wikipedia's readers. That is why I removed affirmative action from the list of common examples -because I think the controversial nature of its inclusion would necessitate including both sides for balance and that that is inappropriate for a list of common examples of euphemisms.

I believe a source stating the counter position that 'referring to alternative action as euphemism is an attempt to discredit it by its political opponents' was presented in the previous discussion on this. I can collect sources to provide this position if necessary, but I think ultimately that because including affirmative action in this list of common examples would require also including the counter position for balance, this demonstrates that it is a bad common example and I think between the options of

-including affirmative action while noting that it is consider controversial to refer to it is a euphemism, or

-simply not including what is an unnecessarily controversial example that doesn't in my opinion significantly enrich what the article communicates to the reader about euphemisms and serves mainly in my opinion to push one certain partisan view on affirmative action,

that simply not including makes far more sense. Best, F. 217.151.98.11 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted. It's a euphamism, the sources agree. If this particular euphamism raises hackles, that is all the more reason to include it : an example of why we use euphamisms, how they come about. That will be more clear if we remove ourselves from the ideology using a different example. Assume you're a parent whose child has a brain disorder. You become sensitive to how such children are described. "Retarded" -- in the 1950's or 1960's was a clinical term, neutral, simply meaning slower than others, needing more time to learn. But in the mouths of taunting children it became a perjorative. So in the 1970's well meaning people started coming up with substitutes, euphamisms. "Learning disabled?" "Differently abled?" "Challenged?" Each in turn is going to trigger anxiety in the parent whose child is being described, categorized, and perhaps belittled. They are not NPOV, complains the anxious parent. Maybe not. But they are euphamisms.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 13:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I agree "Affirmative Action" should be removed as an example, or at least given a lot more context such as "Critics of affirmative action describe it as a euphemism." By the definition at the top, Euphemisms "May be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant". Clearly not everyone thinks affirmative action is unpleasant, and the idea that people may find affirmative action offensive could, in itself be found offensive. Wikipedia should not be trying to offend.

The sources do not agree that it is a euphemism. Washington post title: "The Supreme Court tangles over euphemisms for affirmative action" (ie affirmative action is not a euphemism, but other expressions are euphemisms for it). It's unreasonable to expect sources that deny it's a euphemism, but if you look at JFK's executive order: "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." It is affirmative. It is action. The words are used in their regular meanings. The exact nature of affirmation, and the action are not specified, and that context has added later.

The argument that you need references to say that something is not a euphemism is bogus. If people believe something is not a euphemism, they will simply use it without mention it is not a euphemism (as for example in wikipedia's page on affirmative action, and countless other sources I could mention.)

We should be able to find better examples of politically-motivated euphemisms. The term is not central to the idea of euphemism.

How about "pro life" for anti-abortion? Would that also be contentious? Or "political correctness" which is a euphemism for "language use that challenges my conservative sensibility about white male privilege" ;) Markshinshu (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Here's another way of looking at this. Remember a euphemism is an expression that evolves to hide an expression that is in someway unpleasant. I'm not an expert on US history, but in the case of "affirmative action", this is what happened:

0. Ongoing discrimination against women and non-whites.

1. Attempts were made to stop this discrimination, for example the abolition of slavery. (which could be classified as negative action)

2. By the 1960s some people believed that was not enough and some affirmative action was needed.

3. Since the 1960s, various positive measures have been taken to try to redress discrimination. This includes discrimination, however the purpose is not to discriminate, the purpose is affirmative action. It is still affirmative action.

If Kennedy had started off saying "We need to start discriminating against white males", and people had later started calling this "affirmative action" then it would be logical to call affirmative action a euphemism.

As it is, it seems illogical.

Please correct me if I've got the history wrong. I'm from the UK where this is usually called "positive discrimination" or "preferential treatment", and where a lot of people (including the author of the Economist style guide) probably think of "affirmative action" as a quaint americanism. Markshinshu (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsuitable references?:

"Style Guide". The Economist... a style guide for British English, with a self-proclaimed bias against americanisms.

Custred, Glynn & Campbell, Tom (2001-05-22). ... no longer available

Bayan, Rick (December 2009). "Affirmative Action". The New Moderate. ... isn't this just some dude's blog?

George F. Will (April 25, 2014). "The Supreme Court tangles over euphemisms for affirmative action". The Washington Post... this is an opinion piece.

I think these need to be deleted. Markshinshu (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To users 51.6.173.175 (F.) and Markshinshu: You are absolutely right. The statements about "affirmative action" (and other controversial examples) that they are euphemisms are not NPOV and should be removed.

To user ElijahBosley: The question has not been "resolved", as you put it. We argued about this a long time ago, but didn't come to any resolution. (See archive page 3.)

The belief that it is appropriate for the article to unconditionally state that some terms are euphemisms (and thus that there are more correct terms that could be found to be "offensive" or "unpleasant") is based on the failure to recognise a few important facts:

Statements about something being an euphemism are value statements, and such statements are inappropriate in an encyclopaedic text if they are the least bit controversial.
The use of opinion pieces and political debate texts as sources for Wikipedia articles is not appropriate. Even if they are published in reputable newspapers. This invalidates all of the references to support of that claim.

A single news article from some of the given sources would be sufficient to support a factual statement (for example: "the Supreme Court ruled that this-and-that is unconstitutional"). But any number option pieces in those sources do not justify the claim that the correct term for something would be "unpleasant" or "offensive". This distinction is fundamental for encyclopaedic texts such as Wikipedia!

Because of this we cannot state that some terms are euphemisms if there is even the slightest hint of controversy. All such examples must be altogether uncontroversial, such as "number 1 is an euphemism for urination".

See the project page Identifying reliable sources for more information about this.

I will edit the article to instead point out that some terms are called "euphemisms" as part of political discourse.

Liiiii (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this "language policing" stuff. Euphemism is a characteristic, not a value judgment. It's an objective fact that "affirmative action" is euphemistic. The only PoV being pushed here is coming from Liiiii. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing type of euphemism: Named Example

Another type of euphemism that seems to be missing from this article is one where the name of a person who is well-known (even notorious) for some characteristic is used as a euphemism for that. For example, people used to refer to someone as 'an Oscar Wilde' to tag them as gay. (In ancient Greece, Aristophanes similarly had a character say "There is an Agathon".) In the 1960's, the comment 'he might as well do the full Christine Jorgenson' referred to transitioning gender. I remember it being common to refer to someone beginning to drink too much by using the name of the 'town drunk': he's turning into another Otis Campbell.

A related case is where someone's name is used in a derogatory way, to associate them with that characteristic. An example might be Gore Vidal's novel Myron where he used the names of Supreme Court Justices (who had just issues a restrictive pornography ruling) as substitutes for dirty words.

Is this a type of euphemism that should be added to the article? T bonham (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Blessing God

How about a euphamism type of ssying the opposite of what you mean, such as the Biblical "Blessing God" which actually means cursing Him? 37.26.146.215 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cursing and blessing are actually closely related. See the relevamr wiki entries: sacrum etc.

Zezen (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What about "refugee" for economic migrant?

Since most of the "Syrian" "refugees" coming to Europe are neither Syrian nor refugees, would this be a worthwhile addition?

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-economic-migrants-and-refugees-are-coming-to-europe-for-the-same-reasons-report-says-a6779616.html

Cameron Nedland (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The cite does not use the word euphamism. And since a migrating refugee can be economic -- or political fleeing repression, or a war refugee fleeing death, or what have you, I don't think refugee qualifies as a euphamism for migrant. It might be a mischaracterization, but not a euphamism.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 16:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a good example. Technically, that is in law, they are illegal aliens, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law)

Zezen (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)