Not sure if many are saying that weasel words are properly used to convey statements that are both obvious and self-evident.

Unsupported attributions
Shortcuts
MOS:WEASEL
MOS:AWW
Words to watch: some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded/considered, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, scientists claim, it is often said, officially, is widely regarded as, X has been described as Y ...

A weasel saying "Some people say that weasel words are great!"
Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[c]

The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies. Equally, editorial irony such as "Despite the fact that fishermen catch fish, they don't tend to find any" and damning with faint praise, like "It is known that person X is skilled in golf, but is inferior to person Y." have no place in Wikipedia articles.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}}, {{By whom}}, or similar templates to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the problem).

Editorializing
"WP:EDITORIAL" redirects here. For the reliability of editorial sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations.
"MOS:OP-ED" redirects here. For policy on op-eds and original research, see WP:NOROPED. For guideline on citing op-eds as sources, see WP:NEWSOPED. For submission of editorials to the Wikipedia Signpost internal newsletter, see WP:OP-ED.
"WP:OFCOURSE" redirects here. For the essay which had the "OFCOURSE" shortcut prior to March 2021, see Wikipedia:Of course it's voting.
See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Instructional and presumptuous language, and Wikipedia:It should be noted
Shortcuts
MOS:EDITORIAL
MOS:OP-ED
MOS:OFCOURSE
WP:OFCOURSE
Words to watch: notably, it should be noted, arguably, interestingly, essentially, utterly, actually, clearly, absolutely, of course, without a doubt, indeed, happily, sadly, tragically, aptly, fortunately, unfortunately, untimely ...

Use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretive viewpoints and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Care should be used with actually, which implies something contrary to expectations; make sure this is verifiable and not just assumed. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course all presume too much about the reader's knowledge and perspective and often amount to verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view on whether an event was fortunate or not.

This kind of persuasive writing approach is also against the Wikipedia:No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion) and the Instructional and presumptuous language guideline (Wikipedia does not break the fourth wall and write at the reader, other than with navigational hatnotes).