Many of the examples struck me as idiomatic language or jargon rather than euphemisms...

But I really enjoyed, "...euphemisms had penetrated into various realms..." since I agree that the misuse of language has farked those occupations.

Good work, keep it up. Nudge, nudge, know what I mean?

Loved the photo, too. John Cleese in the Argument Clinic sketch?

Thank you Professor Curson for demonstrating what is wrong with the tertiary education sector: you have risen to the top and have the temerity to write a puff piece on euphemism in academic writing which repeatedly demonstrates that you don't actually know what constitutes a euphemism and you didn't bother to check (a practice which used to be covered in Academic Rigour 1.01 at all reputable universities). All the examples you give are obfuscations, academic jargon, padding, poor writing, edubabble. They are not euphemisms. This is a euphemism: saying "I cannot go to the bathroom" when you can't bring yourself to say "I am constipated".

This is the first online definition I found:

eu·phe·mism

- less offensive synonym: a word or phrase used in place of a term that might be considered too direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive
- use of inoffensive words: the use of a word or phrase that is more neutral, vague, or indirect to replace a direct, harsh, unpleasant, or offensive term

None of your examples qualify.

Haaa haha. I believe that Peter Curson IS John Cleese, looking for a scholarly argument with this article!

Although I do admit that more research on this important topic is needed! ( :>)

I have often encountered in books of mathematics, "It is obvious..." "It is obvious..." actually means "It can be proven..." Proving it may require pages upon pages of mathematical reasoning.

One euphemism that bothers me greatly is to call the military a defense force. If that were truly so wars would cease as there would be no attacks. Armies can attack, threaten, occupy and do many other things like help in catastrophes. The military is much more than a defense force. Why not refer to the military as the military and weapons as weapons rather than defense equipment? "Collateral damage" may be be unintended slaughter dressed up in fancier wordage. The killing establishments are rife with euphemisms.

Another euphemism is to call someone who works for the government a public servant. An arrogant and unhelpful bureaucrat does not behave like a respectful servant. Those who work for the government have government jobs. They should be called government workers not public servants.

Yes Peter, Candide is right.

Euphemism is where we say something in a roundabout or covert because it would seem impolite to say it frankly, for example "I'm going to the bathroom", instead of "I'm going to p!ss".

What you have cited have in common that the author uses the third person neuter passive mood, "it is", rather than the first person singular active mood, "I" as the subject of the sentence to obscure the fact that he is talking about his own value judgments.

This is worse than euphemism for two reasons.

Firstly it is sloppy thinking. It doesn't distinguish *who* is actually making the value judgment. This is critical where it is the value judgments involved that are in issue.

Secondly, it is dishonest because it is often used in academic writing, especially in the environmental sciences, to cover for the fact that the author has a vested interest in a particular outcome, and a conflict of interest with people relying on his paper for the truth.

I remember when I was studying ecology and biogeography at university. The lecturers taught us to say "it is concluded" etc. instead of "I conclude", saying it's "more scientific". This is complete bullsh!t. It's *less scientific".

Then when our results did not show any clear conclusion, or whatever conclusion they did show, we used to laugh about concluding that this shows the need for more research funding to be channelled in our direction.

At the time we thought this was a big joke. But imagine my chagrin on entering the real world to find that this kind corrupt obscurantism is used *all the time* in the environmental sciences as a pretext for politicians to violate people's property rights, passing off the value judgments involved to some unspecified "it".

What is the euphemism for egotistical idiot?
Professor, in stepping outside your narrow expertise to publically exhibit your ignorance, you have invited the rubbishing of "academic writing". Fortunately , you do not represent climate scientists.