Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:14, 13 September 2009

Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Examples

Those examples suck. Not one of them is a proper statement of reductio ad hitlerum; the best examples are usually Godwin posts on Usenet discussions, but whatever, the examples given do not illustrate the definition as stated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / (W) AfD? 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The examples are meant to illustrate how to show that any such argument is in fact nonsense. They're not examples of actual reductions ad hitlerums. Please read the article carefully before judging. ~Anonymous

No, really, the examples really ARE that bad. Especially the last one. Essentially it is argumented that excessive supervision by the state can easily be misused for malign purposes, and Hitler is a mere example, not part of the reasoning.

Anyway, SHOULD the examples not at least be genuine reductios ad hitlerum? Else why are they included in this article anyway? --Stephan, 30th January 2006

Yes, they ought to be genuine examples of the reductio ad hitlerum. NickelShoe 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The third is a very poor example. It is perfectly valid to cite Hitler's use of excessive supervision there: it's intended to illustrate the way in which ID cards might be misused, not merely taint them by association.--Malcohol 12:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In Watchmen, Rorschach uses reductio ad Hitlerum to insult Ozymandias; after Nite Owl points out that Ozymandias is a vegetarian, Rorschach points out that Hitler was one too. -- LGagnon 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The examples suck. The 'Equating Israelis with Nazis' example unwittingly contains an ad hitlerum itself in suggesting that Arabs and Palestinians were nazis. IMHO, there are some major POV issues with this example. Hitler and gun control or the Hitler-Bush comparison would be better, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.225.117 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. --GHcool (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a Reductio ad Hitlerum as well? In the same way it says in respect to equating isreal with the nazis: "Europeans use it to shift the focus away from the crimes of the Holocaust they committed in their own past to the crimes that their past victims (Jews) are alledgelly committing in the present."- firstly, all europeans comitted crimes against the jews in the holocaust? and because of that they are framing the "alledged" (as if they were not real: ) it's plain nonsense, most of the countries in Europe were the ENEMIES of the axis. In my opinion, the article needs an urgent rewrite. Blatant POV can be found everywhere.--190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Godwin's Law

Pretty much, Godwin's Law is a law that deals directly with Reductio ad Hitlerum. The analyses in the articles complement each other nicely. They should be together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs)

• Disagree. The two are only superficially related and each has more than enough merit to stand on its own as an article. This is akin to suggesting that all Chevrolet car articles be merged into one because they are all from the same manufacturer. ⇒ BRossow /_C 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• You are argumenting like HITLER! He, too, always wanted to artificially seperate was ought to be one...
• I see the point behind merging them, but I also see Brossow's concern about it muddying the articles up--making the differences less clear. If the articles were particularly short, that would be somewhat different, but a clean merge looks difficult without simply keeping them as separate sections. Perhaps something more prominent connecting the two than "see also" would be in order, though. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. In addition to BRossow's comments, a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis is not automatically a fallacy, and it's not just the fallacies that Godwin's Law addresses. --Grouse 08:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but the analysis that Godwin's Law gives is useful for all Hitler and Nazi comparisons, not just those on online communities. Reductio ad Hitlerum would benefit from the analysis in the Godwin's Law article. It's not an issue of article size; both articles have enough information for a page of their own. It is instead an issue of "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." As for the fact that Hitler/Nazi comparisons aren't always fallacious, I think that that's an important distinction that Godwin's Law has and Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't, and both topics would benefit from it. Jesuschex 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • But, it's not like you couldn't add information from either page without doing a full merge. I'm just concerned about merging them when they're pretty distinct ideas. That is, when a reader clicks "Godwin's Law", I think it's unfair for them to end up at "Reductio ad Hitlerum" or vice versa, if neither is truly a subtopic of the other. That seems like it would be confusing and even misleading in itself. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. They are in fact addressing different topics: This adresses the likeliness of someone to relate something to Hitler, the Nazi party, etc. making it evil (with a flawed argument), while the Godwin's law article addresses the likeliness of a Usenet user to compare a user or other object to that of the Nazis, e.g. "Grammar Nazi", as an insult or general moniker, to show that they do this frequently or aggressively. --SheeEttin 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. Hitler would have agreed. toresbe 12:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious comment!

• This disagree comment was posted at Godwin's Law and I am copying it here as it forms part of this discussion:

It seems worth pointing out that deletion or merger would break certain prior media references to Misplaced Pages's entry on "Godwin's Law". Moreover, there are probably more references to Godwin's Law on Usenet on the Web than there are to "Reductio Ad Hitlerum," which in any case does not have the same meaning. It seems wrong to have Straussians attempt to hijack this page or delete it. Furthermore, googling "Godwin's Law" and "reductio ad hitlerum" indicates that references to the former exceed those to the latter by at least an order of magnitude. So:

(1) the two locutions don't mean the same thing.

(2) Godwin's law has an order of magnitude (at least) more references

(3) fans of Leo Strauss ought not to be able to hijack this page

(4) there have been external media references to this Misplaced Pages entry.

—This unsigned comment was added by 68.49.2.164 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 April 2006 UTC.

• Do not merge as per 68.49.2.164. -- cmh 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree. Quite different things. romanista 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears there is a clear consensus to keep separate pages. I am therefore removing the proposed mergebox. --Grouse 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided to put a reference to Godwin's Law into the lead paragraph, and in turn put a reference to this article in the GL one. I think the two topics are sufficiently intertwined to warrant that. mstroeck 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Random observations

"ad nazium" sounds like "ad nauseam".

I Agree. The term may have arisen from a finessing of "Reductio ad Hitlerum" and finding a more appropriate logical fallacy term, not to mention having fewer syllables and a wider applicability. ad nazium would, in fact, make a nice subset of the ad nauseam arguments, being Dog Latin itself. 64.90.198.6 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum may be used as a meta-argument: "You know who else appealed to emotions (which is what this Reductio usually intends) for support? Hitler!"

Moustaches

Can it be conclusively proved that men with moustaches aren't evil? Seems like a rather POV statement to me. CameoAppearance 06:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe law of excluded middle is important here.

Screw you, I was going to point that out. :P Vitriol 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am an evil rouge admin and I have a moustache. Does that count? Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Men with mustaches are clearly evil. Don't you people watch the movies? --Jfruh (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is very POV and should be removed because men with mustaches are obviously a menace to our existence. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Couln't agree more. Men with moustaches are a menace to the society as we know it. Oh, and add to them men without moustaches and women (with and without moustaches). Isilanes 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I think there's a consensus here that such a dangerous lie should be erased from the Misplaced Pages. Or better, shaved from the Misplaced Pages.

Please, take this more seriously! There is empirical evidence enough that wearing a moustache and being evil are positively correlated!193.40.33.50 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about the "reductio ad stalinum"

I have been unable to verify the fact that is asserted in this sentence: "For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary because Josef Stalin enacted its abolition." I have looked high and low for information about Stalin having done this and have not found it in any biography. If anyone has information about this, I would be grateful if it would be posted. G.L. 07:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Inserted --Manscher (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why 'counterexamples'?

Considering the fact that Reductio ad Hitlerum is fallacious even in the context X = 'holocaust', why is there a mention of those counterexamples at all? They do not in any way enlighten people on the fallacy of the reasoning because the fallacy is logically deeper than the superficial (counter)examples. Just a statement of 'they are not evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler was evil because he advocated them.' already included should be more than enough.

Showing also the superficial examples will only serve to perpetuate the fallacy because they do not tackle the fact that not only the good sides of Hitler but also the bad sides are not a valid use of argument. So I say either add some references to Hitler's worse actions (invading poland, antisemitism, etc.) in the examples or just remove them as a whole.

• Good point. I'll see to it. Isilanes 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The point that i am trying to make but for some reason keeps getting removed is this. The counterexamples do not refute anything as the article says. Just because someone was an opponent to Hitler does not make them by implication not evil themselves. As a very good example Stalin is considered by many to be at least as evil as Hitler. Therefore it is irrelevant what commonalities Churchill and Eisenhower have with Hitler.71.61.16.14 08:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree. The counterexamples do refute. Your words imply that Churchill or Eisenhower are considered "good" because they oposed Hitler. You are accusing other authors of making an "inverse" ad Hitlerum, which is not the case. These people, and specially Einstein, are considered at least not particularly evil by themselves. Then, the comparison to Hitler is used as a reductio ad absurdum for the ad Hitlerum. Isilanes 09:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do think, and many on the (real) left political spectrum will agree, that Churcill and Eisenhower were particulary Evil. So I don't think the may be good examples... it's POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does not make sense

The line "The argument being fallacious, however, does not prove X, or its supporters, not being evil" does not make sense.

• Yes, it does. But maybe it could benefit from a couple of examples of what it means. --Sebastián

• Well, I guess that examples of supporting some Nazi idea and not being evil should be (and have been) given. The opposite... one wouldn't think so. However, in the same paragraph it reads: "Hitler killed human beings, therefore killing is wrong", and it is clearly said that X (killing human beings) might be wrong (we could rephrase it to "evil"), even though the reasoning behind the affirmation is fallacious. I think that this example, and the "affirming the consequent" mention, make it clear... but anything to make it clearer or more complete is welcome! - Isilanes 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the "trousers and rain" simile is not apt -- it's more an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. To be a real parallel it should have to do with trousers. The point is that "Hitler did X , therefore X is wrong," even if X IS wrong, is fallacious. A parallel should therefore be "I do X, , therefore X is Y" (even if X really IS Y), not "I do X, , therefore Z." If I am myself making sense. I just don't have a suitable trouser conclusion handy that is both true concerning trousers and yet fallacious. EDIT: Possibly "I am wearing jeans , therefore jeans are blue." Blue jeans ARE blue, but not because I'm wearing them. ...?

• I don't get your point exactly. The "trousers and rain" simile is not there to directly illustrate a reductio ad Hitlerum, but rather to clarify what a logical fallacy is, in general. Maybe it's misleading, then? Thanks for pointing out, I'll consider changing it (of course, you can do it yourself). Moreover, your example with blue jeans is not really correct, because if I always wear blue, and I wear jeans, it logically follows that jeans (at least the ones I wear) are blue. From the information we have, yes, they are blue because I wear them. Similarly, if we assumed that all Hitler did was "bad", then from Hitler having done something, it follows that it was bad (and the reductio ad Hitlerum would be a sound reasoning). The problem is with the premise that all that Hitler did was bad, which is obviously incorrect. A maybe better simile would be: "I wear a horrible pair of jeans, and I like Velázquez, therefore Velázquez was a bad painter" (it goes implied that, since I wear ugly trousers, I have bad taste, and since I have bad taste for clothes, I must have bad taste for everything. Moreover, if I have bad taste and like a painter, it must be bad, because I can not even be "right" by chance). However, the more convoluted an example, the less apt to convey the main idea of why a fallacy is a fallacy (be it reductio ad Hitlerum or any other), and that's why I am partial to the "trousers and rain" simile. — Isilanes 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have inserted text in the introduction to the same effect, and modified the trousers and rain argument to avoid confusion. Could still be improved, though... --Manscher (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism?

How the heck does X='vegetarianism'?? I don't this there was one German in the 1940's who was a vegetarian, or claimed to be one. It seems that possibly this is the case because there is some fallacy regarding Hitler being a vegetarian. He wasn't. --169.237.165.103 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have seen this claim outside of Misplaced Pages, in The People's Almanac (a real book!) It is possible this is untrue, but if it is, it is a common incorrect belief.P.L.A.R. 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He was, but I dont beleive he 'truely' adhered to it until about 1938, before it was selective. I have studied his life in depth, but I can assue you his vegetarianism is supported by most historians user:Pzg Ratzinger

Hitler definitely was not a vegetarian, as this article points out, and he should not be listed or classified as such. He ate sausage frequently and ham occasionally. He also oppressed vegetarian groups in Germany and outlawed nearly every single one of them. Nanten 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did have a very peculiar diet, though, he mostly ate very bland and tasteless food, prepared by his own private chef. If he was a vegetarian, it wasn't because of ethical reasons, but something medical (imagined or otherwise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.225.117 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the vegetarianism references; there are plenty of other charateristics of Hitler that can be used for these illustrations; no point in debating the vegetarianism here. --Manscher (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Binladenum

I removed the following addition by 213.94.253.3 because it's unsubstantiated, unreferenced and isn't really neutral point of view:

Reductio ad Binladenum can be seen in the following quote by Diogo Freitas do Amaral "The agreement to start talks with Turkey will probably displease Mr Osama bin Laden, who has done everything to prevent this moment arriving." Essentially it is saying: bin Laden opposes Turkish EU membership, therefore Turkey should join the EU.

The quote by Amaral seems to me to be simply a plain statement of fact, and we cannot know if Amaral intended the statement to be interpreted as the editor suggested. Starlord 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so there are three options: either he mentions bin Laden because a) his displease is positive for the matter discussed, b) it is negative, or c) it is irrelevant. What are you suggesting is the case? It is either an argument from authority (a), a reductio ad binLadenum (b) or a non sequitur (c). And the ad binLadenum is by far the most likely one. Or maybe you mean that if I were to say "Turkey will join the EU, which would please Hitler", I would not be using a reductio ad Hitlerum? It woult not be so just because I would not add "... so it makes it bad" (which would go implied)? For me it is clear as water, however I would accept that there may be better examples — Isilanes 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate example

I think that I have found the most hilarious example of the reductio ad Hitlerum: . I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add a link to this in the article, or add it to the examples. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your link is broken :-(

Oh dear, it seems to have moved. In any case, there was someone arguing that since Hitler believed the earth was round, everyone else who agrees with this is on the same moral level as him. Funny while it lasted. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Try this - - 203.214.158.32 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Found a better one: this pretty much sums up the concept —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.226.6 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Linux example

Some people say Linux is bad because it's (allegedly) used by Kim Jong Il. How bout putting this as an example? It's much more recent than Cromwell..91.127.220.242 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume that Kim Jong II is bad? 117.195.20.118 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Einsteinium

I've noticed there is no general page for logical fallacies. I think there should be a fallacy called Reducto ad Einsteinium. Basically the fallacy being if Einstein said it, it must be true. I’ve only found this phrase used once on the web. Well, I’ve used it one place as well. That makes three instances of it. Maybe it will catch on. I've used it here: http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8539 More logical fallicies can be found at this link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html ~~s243a

• There is a page for that: appeal to authority — Isilanes 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

not necesaary a Reductio ad Einstenium is an appeal to autorithy. Einstein said many thing on fields that had nothing to do with it's specific field (many of them, wrong), but many people take all of those things that einstein said as "good" or "right" just because EINSTEIN said them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly appealing to authority?? Or are you suggesting that people are referring to Einstin even for topics he is no authority on? --Manscher (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not A Fallacious Statement

This statement: "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are comparable to Hitler." is not actually a fallacy from what I can see. One can compare to Hitler. It is not a very good comparison but you can do it. I think it would be better if it read something like "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are as evil as Hitler.", this would both be a fallacy and be a better example of reductio ad Hitlerum in my opinion. Colincbn 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most people crying "Godwin's Law" when you point out something they propose as constituting fascism as well as all comparisons to Hitler. Generally, comparisons to Hitler that I've seen are to /disprove/ ridiculous claims along the lines of "Anyone doing X is a good person." Did Hitler doing X make him a good person? Nothing in this article balances this, and unfortunately it likely won't because of the preponderance of "ohh, you can't compare anyone to Hitler, Hitler wasn't human." Hitler was very human, and those who forget that are likely to not see the next one coming who promises to rebuild the nation, make things better for the nation, etc. ... --Chibiabos 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't follow your argument. If someone says "Anyone doing X is good", and you say "Hitler also did X... so you are wrong" (assuming that Hitler being "bad" or "evil" is obvious) is a perfectly valid reductio ad absurdum. This article does not deal with that. This article deals with saying "Doing X makes you automatically evil, because Hitler also did X". — isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't follow it because you didn't read it; that's how most people mis-use it. Anyone mentioning the word 'Hitler' in an argument, regardless of what the actual point being made is, "automatically loses" the argument to too many people who fail to grasp debate and are unwilling to consider the absurdity of the points of their argument upon which their reasoning hinges.

Except that they don't. There's no basis for this in formal argument. If something is a fallacy, it is an actual fallacy whose errors can be pointed out without reference to a particular historical figure. The idea that one man's name can invalidate an argument is in of itself a fallacy. As one cannot have a fallacious fallacy, this is basically a stupid article to put under Philosophy, even if Leo Strauss' feelings were hurt.

 Another reason this is mis-used is, in a discussion of whether or not 'Christianity' is good or evil, pointing out that Hitler's violent anti-semitic views (according to what I've read anyway) originated from Christians, inspired by (among others) Martin Luther who founded the Lutheran Church.  --Chibiabos 16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, violent antisemitism existed long before Christianity ever did. And Luther's main target of ire were the Muslims -- Jews were hardly a factor in the Empire during Luther's day. Hitler's violent antisemitism had very little to do with Christianity -- the original targets of fascist movements were communists, who were then later associated retroactively with the Jews. - Che Nuevara 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, genocide and white supremacism, as two examples, are not considered evil on their own basis, while Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them.

At least they made the trains run on time

I added a note about the, I thought, common enough counter ad-hitlerum, "at least they made the trains run on time"; which I took to be a way of saying "that's a common logical fallacy" without shouting "Godwin's Law!" at everyone.
However... I've since heard a reference to the phrase (TV doco) which implied that the phrase refers to the trains transporting Jews to the death camps. In other words, it's the punchline of an old, terrifyingly ironic joke amongst post-War Jewish comedians. ("It could be worse, Moshe, at least...") Hence, off topic, probably offensive in this context.
On the other hand, an editor of my text commented that this was an Italian joke at Mussolini's expense. So, still off topic, but not offensive. Basically, I'm just confused.

Delete it, don't delete it??? -- PaulxSA (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe -- but I'm not positive -- that the joke came afterwards, as a way of disparaging the idea that "at least they made the trains run on time". Don't quote me, but it seems most likely to me. - Revolving Bugbear 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Trains running on time? Reliable transportation (this applies also to Autobahnen for which Adolf Hitler was given undue credit) isn't evil in itself. How a regime gets the trains running on time or builds good roads matters. Non-totalitarian governments have been able to build good roads (the Dutch had a motorway by 1940) and gotten the trains to run on time. Italy had reliable train service before World War I that was badly degraded during the war and took several years to get back to the pre-war norm.

Technological marvels are not proof of the moral superiority of a society but instead proof of the society's ability to marshal the resources to achieve them. The Soviet Union was able to do wonders in early space exploration because it was able to concentrate resources in such an activity even if it was a nasty place in which to live. (Sure, that judgment is biased -- but Soviet living standards were low in contrast to most of the rest of Europe, and the political system allowed practically none of the civil liberties taken for granted elsewhere).--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just Bleh. Europe came from hundreds of years of development. The Soviet Union came from Imperial Russia and other underdeveloped countries. Actually, comparing the Soviet times with the Imperial Tsarist times, opression was the same, but living standars after the revolution raised a lot, as well as education and cultural activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Reducio ad Hitlerum

Would someone bringing up Hitler/Nazis/The Holocaust to show that something else isn't all that bad, and not worthy of being discussed, be an example of reverse reducio ad Hitlerum, and if so, should reverse reducio ad Hitlerum be included in the article?

For example, if there were a discussion on government access to library records, when someone new posts something along the lines of "What does it matter? At least they're not gassing six million Jews. you need to focus on more important things like genocide. Library records are trivial."

The fallacy being that because library snooping isn't as bad the Holocaust, it isn't something which deserves at least careful thought and worry.

(This isn't to say anything about library snooping- there are all sorts of discussions where this could be used, and there will be people on either side of it. I just thought it was a good example.)

I've seen this kind of thing a lot, too.

--Tyrannophobe (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument is best understood as the slippery slope fallacy -- for example, any rightward move on the political spectrum is a move toward Hitler, or that any little repression (as in attempts to discover what persons access child pornography) leads to greater ones.

It's used frequently by the gun fanatics in America who argue that efforts to ban the handguns that criminals prefer to use will lead in the end to the prohibition of hunting rifles and in turn to the inability of people to stand up to a usurpation of dictatorial power. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"Expelled" as an example?

Has anyone here seen "Expelled"? I think that this would be an excellent example, but I don't want to add it myself seeing as I don't know that much about this topic (Reductio ad Hitlerum), and I could be wrong altogether. Thanks! Cliche Screenname (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On the inevitable Israel/Palestine issue (please help)...

I think we need a new reductio, 'Reductio ad irrelevant Terrorism/Zionism/antisemitism based rant', with an accompanying Godwin-style law (Jerusalem law?) that in any debate on an issue remotely connected with political philosophy, someone will highjack it as a platform for their views on the Isreal-Palestine conflict, and everyone will lose...

I'm trying to edit the 'Examples: New Anti-semitism' section into something vaguely resembling no-POV, and it's not easy. Please help... it's always hard to balance these things without it turning into a tit-for-tat debate.

I think it would be a shame to cull the whole section, as minus the rhetoric they do have a fair point and it is a good example, so long as it's not taken too far. I am very tempted to delete the final paragraph. Interesting as it is, it basically amounts to 'There are academics who have speculated about roots of what they think are the beliefs of two continents regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict', and I don't see what that has to do with either Reductio Ad Hitlerum or logical fallacies in general.

I've left that paragraph alone because I'm not experienced enough to make that call. al

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanomaly (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel

'Scholars explain this phenomenon in different ways depending on which individual or group is using the false analogy. Bernard Lewis explains that Middle Eastern Arabs use it as an attempt to rewrite the history of the Holocaust by placing Arabs in the Jews' roles and Jews in the Nazis' roles (many Arabs admired the Nazis). Mitchell G. Bard explains that Europeans use it to shift the focus away from the crimes of the Holocaust they committed in their own past to the alleged crimes that their past victims (Jews) are committing in the present.'

'Explains' is contentious, it makes the opinions of these people sounds like faact, 'many arabs admired the Naziis' is contentious (I would argue out-right incorrect, with 'many' definetly not being quantifiable, and in fact far less Arabs admiring the Nazis than Britains for example), unecessary and not supported by the source (which does not seem to be that authoritative anyway).86.140.39.142 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole Nazisrael thing and equivalent should be kept to a miniumum, its inclusion only invites debate and polemic, parallels between Israel and aspects of Nazi Germany can be drawn (i.e. nationalism), so it would be incorrect to strawman the argument here by saying they cant, however the linsk are often tenous, and the motives between Nazi Policy and Israeli policy are in many ways different (but in some ways not), and the Israeli policy is far less extreme (at leadt at this moment in time). I think the argument should just be avoided, this page only is ment to provide examples for ad Hitlerum and this one as stated only brings more argument than necessary, if it is included evaluation should be kept to a minimum, it is not wikipedia's job to evaluate each and every use of fallacy.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this Israel/Nazi fallacy is made often enough by enough people and organizations that it deserves to be discussed, and has been discussed, and should be included on WIkipedia. Some of 86.140.39.142's arguments above resort to the vary same fallacy. The people quoted here are scholars of Middle Eastern history. Their opinions on the subject are as informed as the opinions of the scientists in the creationism/Hitler fallacy. --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I state I dont support the fallacy, I state it is a fallacy, I think that correlation does not imply linkage, the extent to which I percieve Israel and Hitler's Germany only stretches as far as I see both as ethincally nationalist states supporting speicific ehtnic groups within their populous. In fact my own opinion is that the comparissons between Nazi Germany and Israel are often strained, and generally the motive behind them is to be 'provocative', i.e. to tell 'the Jews' that they are doing the same thing in Israel that the Germans were doing in Germany. Although I personally find such linkages often offensive, I think to a degree they are also necessary in the fact they point to some aspects of right-wing policy of those in Israel bearing uncomfertable similarities to the policies pursued by the Nazis (i.e. the 'ghettoization' of the Palestinians), I think such comparisons although often forced are not necessary as fallacious as the sections devoted to them try and claim by hiding behind the wall of a seemingly un-realted topic. P.S. you have not adressed my more specific concern, the unqualified and weasel worded statement that 'most arabs supported the Nazis' which is pretty much utterly incorrect.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt have a probelm with the section if it was altered so it dosent look like its trying to prove a point and trying to debunk specific criticism of Israel, frankly it sounds like a bit of an apology and Im not confident that it hasn't been written for this purpose (due to the examples I've given you), again I think 'explains' should be a word limited to things such as the natural sciences, 'explains' here looks like wikipedia is stating what these people say is fact. I wont get into this further but I feel this whole Israel thing was started by someone in punic good faith.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S sorry about my atrocious spelling in general, I tpe fast and IM a dyslexic (ask if you want more excuses =)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.39.142 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel does not "ghettoize" Palestinians and, in Israel, justice is blind concerning the race/religion of its citizens. This was not the case in Nazi Germany. There is no correlation here at all. For the history of Arab-Nazi collaboration, please read the following articles: Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation, Farhud. Also, see the source this information is cited to within this article in which Bernard Lewis describes the fallacy thusly, "The memory of both the Jewish victims and Arab admirers of the Third Reich is totally effaced" (emphasis added). --GHcool (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Justice is not blind in practice over the arab citizens Israel had control over (including the cocupied territories), you must know this well. Im not, however going to get into and argument with you over this point because it is irrelevant to what I am trying to state; As I have stated I recognise the fallacy as a fallacy, although I also recognise not all fallacies point away from a logical point. I am perfectly well aware of Mohammad main al-Husayni, I did not say no arabs collaberated with the Nazis, but as far as I know the overhwhelming majority did not, and in places such as Albania (although not arab per se) muslims banded together to help prevent practically any taking of Jewish citizens. If the situation was replayed now it might be different, but unfortunately for you history is not written based on events in the present. I am sure you are also well aware that Hitler, before the war, was one of the main advocates of a state of Israel, and the Nazi party funded many organisations. There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated with the Nazis than Arabs (at any rate as far as I am aware of in terms of important personages). 'Expain' as I stated is not encyclopaedio in that it states that this referenced person has a monopoly over the subject and has just dealt a finishing blow to any counter-attack, that is not for this encyclopaedia to judge. 'Many Arabs admired the nazis ' is not quantifiable due to the word 'many', it is a weasel word, and is not quantifiable. Although I completly understand that 'wikipedia is not censored' this seems deliberately placed here to make some sort of point, its like saying '...Is a logical fallacy and oh btw many arabs supported the Nazis regime ...', it is irrelevant and question the good faith of the editor who put it there because it seems like an attack. It would be like me putting in the Israeli Defence Force article, 'the government spent X amount of dollars on X new tank oh and btw many Israelis agree the killing of two thousand Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila was a good thing'.86.140.39.142 (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Bernard Lewis is simply a ultra-right neocon historian, his views should definetly not be taken on their own and under no circumstances should be stated as 'fact', his view is actually on the fringe of most historians, so according to WP:FRINGE yadda yadda...86.140.39.142 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I just got rid of the "most Arabs admired ..." clause. If you don't like Bernard Lewis, feel free to add more historians' opinions as well as his own, but he is definitely a reliable source and not considered fringe by any means. Although some consider his views might be on the conservative end of the political spectrum, he isn't an "ultra-right neocon."

Most of what you wrote above is categorically false:

• The Accusation: "Justice is not blind in practice over the arab citizens Israel had control over (including the cocupied territories), you must know this well."
• The Reality: Justice is blind in practice and in theory over the Arab citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs (i.e. the Arabs living in the occupied territories) are not covered under Israeli law because they are not Israeli citizens. Their legal body is the Palestinian National Authority. Even so, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on certain aspects of Israeli interaction into Palestinian life with incredible subtlety and has often made decisions that favor Palestinian rights over Israeli security concerns (see, for example, the Israeli Supreme Court Opinions on the West Bank Barrier).
• The Accusation: "I am sure you are also well aware that Hitler, before the war, was one of the main advocates of a state of Israel."
• The Reality: This is a ridiculous statement if I ever heard one. If you have proof, feel free to give it, but if not, you've embarrassed yourself deeply.
• The Accusation: "There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated with the Nazis than Arabs (at any rate as far as I am aware of in terms of important personages)."
• The Reality: Another ridiculous statement unworthy of consideration. Prove it or shut up. --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel I have to answer the last two of your statements explicitly because I realize that if left unanswered you could (rightly from judgign an editor who does not back up his statements) get a wrong impression of myself. In reference to Zionists who were backed by Hitler before the war (basically an alliance of convienience as both wished to topple the British government in Palestine) I ahve quickly cameup with this source, it is not at all authoritative but states the examples of the behaviour I was referring to, in no way do I think Zionists and Nazis are the same thing, I just think that stating that arabs were collaberaters when several zionists collaberated would be wrong. Here is the quick link I gained http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_en_101.html, I dont honestly think its very good though, I could take more time to elaborate if you wished. My statement about Hitler supporting a state of Israel, is partly due fact that the Nazi regime supported destabilizing Zionist groups, and that Hitler wished to shift 'The Jews' to every other country, even madagascar. The idea was to form a state of Israel somewhere remote and shift 'the Jews' there, but it never came about and instead the regime committed mass-murder.86.138.253.30 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the 'Ghettoization' claim I was refering to Haifa, although i recognise many citities and settlements in Israel and the occupied teritries have been liberalized or pushed bakc, partly due to the fact the Israeli governments line is now against expansion and wishing for the seperation of Arabs and Jews.86.138.253.30 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This is not even close to a reliable source. Even if it were (and, I repeat, it most definitely is not), it does not support your earlier claim that "There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated with the Nazis than Arabs" (emphasis added). Please do not continue down this line of argument. It is a dead end.

There is no "ghettoization" in Haifa. In fact, Haifa is well known for its relatively peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Jews. --GHcool (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The version of this argument I always seem to hear is where the Israelis & supporters accuse Palestinians and Arabs of supporting or being like Hitler in their anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel. In fact I think I may have just read it in this article. Is this just me, or what? --Streona (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler image

I'm not sure the image of the real Adolph Hitler is appropriate here. This isn't a biography of the man. Would anybody object if I deleted the image from the article? --GHcool (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete it or shrink it or something -OOPSIE- (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please delete this image. It looks like propaganda here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.235.4 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just replaced it with a more appropriate image. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GHcool's deletion of the image of Hitler. The fallacy has nothing to do with what the man named in it looks like. However, the image he substituted of an anti-Zionist rally is far worse than the prior image. The caption seems to promote the rather contentious (and, in fact, almost certainly false) argument that anyone observing similarities or commonalities between Israel and Nazi Germany is committing the named fallacy. Actually, the article itself is a bit guilty of sloppy political argument that accuses certain political positions of inherently resting on the named fallacy.

As reading the article would reveal, the actual fallacy is one of deriving conclusions using a certain flawed logical form. Merely observing or alleging that "Foo is similar to Hitler" is not an example of the fallacy. The claim might be true or false, but the fallacy only comes in deriving unwarranted conclusions from the alleged similarity. Nothing in the illustration GHcool inserted is remotely suggestive of the creator engaging in this fallacious reasoning (whether the person may have done so outside the frame of the photo itself, I haven't the foggiest idea, of course). LotLE×talk 01:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just put the image in the appropriate place. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"For no reason other than"

I have a problem with the following sentence in the first paragraph of the "Equating Israelis with Nazis" section, specifically what I've made to be bold.

"Critics of the analogy argue that there is an obvious difference between a country defending its own citizens against international terrorism, and carefully planned programs of genocide against civilians for no reason other than their race, religion, sexuality, health, politics, or geographical location in areas associated with resistance."

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For instance, how can you put "for no reason other than," and then follow it up with six reasons? Does "for no reason other than" not imply that there is a good reason for genocide that the Nazis didn't think of? What should the Nazis' reasons have been? I understand the difference between defense and pre-meditated assault on a specific group, but I'm not sure that there's a point in saying "for no reason other than," because in the logic of genocide (which is inherently discriminatory), those are perfectly valid reasons.

Perhaps it could be worded differently: "there is an obvious difference between a country defending its own citizens against international terrorism - on one hand - and programs of genocide against civilians for reasons such as race, religion, sexuality, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawrk (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let's take "reason" out of it altogether since reason has little to do with genocidal programs. Consider this: "there is an obvious difference between a country defending its own citizens against international terrorism - on one hand - and programs of genocide against civilians based on race, religion, sexuality, etc." (emphasis added) --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll make the change. --Shawrk (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmz

Im not trying to troll here, but I feel the Israel section as I pointed out above) was strawmanning. I believe reductio ad Hitlerum is tiresome in any context, when used against muslims or against Jews. All I would like to point out is, that it is often applied to israel because it is meant to carry extra weight (i.e the Israelis are hypocritcially commiting partially the crimes commited agaisnt them). I think to discount any relation at all between some Israeli policies and some of the Nazis would be incorrect, but i dont see a close realtion. The only reason there is a realtion is because across the racist stratum the same irrational arguments. Some food for thought 'In Hebron, the slogans "Arabs to the crematoria" and "Arabs - sub-humans"' from the wikipedia entry for anti-arabism. Also consider reading soem of the poems of Erich Fried a German Jew who suffered and lost relatives in the holocaust but criticized israel for its similarity in policy towards the Arabs with some aspects of nazi policy towards the Jews.86.156.52.67 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have brought up one case of racists being assholes and another case of someone committing the Hitlerum fallacy. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC: The "New Antisemitism" Section is an editorial

The "new antisemitism" article is absolutel NOT a "neutral point of view" (whatevertf that means anyway). I think it should go away right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.158.2 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The "New Antisemitism" Section is obviously an editorial. Not only is it non-neutral, it's non-neutral on a hotly contested and controversial subject. I think it should go completely, as it is very clearly meant to have a political agenda in shaping how readers think about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, specifically by rhetorically attacking a particular argument used by one side in the dispute. Is that the goal of this page? Is it the goal of the overall wikipedia? Seems like a so-called encyclopedia is the wrong place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.158.2 (talk • contribs)

Hmm...I am no expert on the field, but the section itself seems correctly placed but needs a NPOV cleanup. You are correct that some points sound editorial and they have to be removed, also because they are not backed up by the sources (like the second example in the second paragraph). I would not advise removing it completely though but trying to attempt to phrase it more NPOV. So#Why 07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.24.89.158.2 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is pretty good as it stands. --GHcool (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if you deleted the Antisemitism section, you would be obligated to delete the Linking acceptance of evolution with Nazism section aswell. Admittedly, I think that might be the solution here. How many comparisons to Hitler or Nazis have been made in politics? Near infinite, that's the whole point of the article. We shouldn't be citing specific examples, BOTH push a POV by giving them undue weight (Non-zero in comparison to zero, so infinitely times more weight). AzureFury (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the decision ends up being to keep the section, I think it's necessary to include a section on Israelis calling Palestinians Nazis which is probably more common. AzureFury (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The section must be firmly trimmed back; its second paragraph is wholly worthless as the examples highlight nothing about Reductio ad Hitlerum. The earlier sentence about crossing the line into anti-semitism is not needed here -- it doesn't reveal anything about Reductio ad Hitlerum. I, too, would like to see this section counterbalanced with an example of an Israeli using Reductio ad Hitlerum against a non-Israeli. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• From the RfC. The section needs to be severly trimmed to one paragraph, or removed. Some of the examples were not very good at all. Comparing treatment of Palestinians in Isreal to treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany is not reductio ab Hitlerum, it's just a comparison. It is not used to suggest that such treatment is bad BECAUSE Hitler did something similar, it is to accuse of hypocricy. Sure,it's a rhetorical device, but it is not this one. Unless these examples have been called RaH bz sources, it shouldn't be in here either.

Judging by the lead, the article confuses 2 completely different types of "arguments":

1. Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong
2. Locking up 1 or 2 protesters is Nazism.

Only the 1st of these is the sort of fallacy given in the initial definition, ie guilt by association, or invalid conversion. The other is simply exaggeration. The article ought at least to distinguish these clearly, if not confine itself to 1 of them. Peter jackson (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but the ad hominem form is at least as popular as the guilt by association form. --GHcool (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Use in Political Rhetoric in the USA

The newly-added section "Use in Political Rhetoric in the USA" needs quite a lot of cleanup (I don't think I've ever seen an edit try to justify itself in the actual prose of the edit before!), but there may be something there worth salvaging. It'll probably be reverted by the time anyone reads this, but, well, maybe worth looking into and recasting. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 12:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of Barack Obama as an example is misconstrued. The comparisons between Obama's and Hitler rhetorical style are more than just a matter of "eloquence." The comparison is really based on the fact that both them have a very loud, forceful and bombastic style.Bostoner (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolution Example

Would an example be useful/appropiate for the article? Gcrossan_(Talk) 03:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel Example

I hear the following fallacious argument all the time:

1. Hitler was critical of Jews (and much worse, of course); and,

2. The State of Israel was founded by Jews; therefore,

any criticism of the policies of the State of Israel is to be like Hitler (i.e. racist and anti-Jew)

QED

Please review WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Invoking Hitler in arguments that are not reductio ad Hitlerum

While some have disputed the validity of the entire counterexamples section, I find it useful with its examples of what, exactly, makes reductio ad Hitlerum a logical fallacy. Such illustrations give the reader a clearer idea of what RaH really is. Now, the section concludes with the statement that

... not all arguments involving Hitler or Nazism are reductio ad Hitlerum, although they may be otherwise fallacious.

This proposes a class of arguments--those arguments that mention Hitler but do not fail on RaH grounds. If this class of arguments could be strictly delineated, it would serve to more clearly define RaH itself.

It's obvious that this class must include, at least, directly related historical arguments. For example, an argument that "World War II would never have happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school in Vienna" may fail on many logical grounds, but it does not constitute RaH, even though it mentions Hitler. My question is: Does this class also include arguments not directly related to historical accounts of Hitler? Is it possible to invoke the specter of Hitler in an argument that has nothing to do with WWII?

I'm no logician, but I expect that it might be difficult to set a clear boundary. Even so, if it is possible, without violating RaH, to use an analogy involving Hitler in an argument not involving Hitler, it would be instructive if the article included examples. Thinking further ahead, the inclusion of such arguments that are logically valid and others that are fallacious on other grounds would also be helpful. Rangergordon (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your logic and your concern for the article. There are legitimate reasons to mention Hitler in an argument, both to compare and contrast. In addition to your example, legitimate uses might include things like:

• Unlike lengthy political manifestos such as Hitler's Mein Kampf or Marx's Das Kapital, Smith's political and economic plan was only 20 pages long.
• In his early movies, usually Chaplin wore a mustache in the same style later adopted by Hitler.
• President Jones appointment of Smith to Prime Minister, and Smith's subsequent consolidation of all state and military powers, was compared by Trevelyan to Bismarck's appointment of Hitler to Chancellor.
• President Smith had only served as a corporal in the Big War but after taking power he wore a uniform and frequently over-ruled his generals, following a pattern set by earlier dictators including Hitler and Jones.
• Hitler showed the folly of engaging in a lengthy, worldwide war with inadequate resources against opponents with much large industrial capacity.
• Smith never matched the oratorical heights or excesses of a Hitler or Taft, but his speeches were just as passionate.

Those kinds of arguments would be legitimate, in my mind. Maybe someone can write a short paragraph that includes something like this as an example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant and long sections on merits of Zionism, etc

The longest section of this article is on a WP:SOAPBOX digression on the merits of Israeli policies, Zionisms, accusations of anti-antisemitism by various people, etc. While there are no doubt articles where these topics are relevant, none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the logical fallacy that this article is about. Let's please keep the political debates somewhere else, and only address any comparison of Israel and Nazi Germany inasmuch as it illustrates the actual logical fallacy this article is supposed to be about.LotLE×talk 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Among the other non-relevant insertions, an editor has repeatedly stuck in the words "during the Holocaust" about the comparison of Israeli's government to Nazis. As far as I can tell, this is just another logical fallacy committed by the editor: namely "appeal to emotion". Something like: 'Ooohhh... the word "Holocaust" is scary, so the comparison must be extra bad'. In any case, many comparisons that are actually made by critics of Israeli policy are quite specific in not comparing that policy to, e.g. 1942 German state policy, but rather to, say, 1932 German policy. Such a comparison might be poor, and may even engage in the fallacy of this article, but the extra words limit the article to discussing only a narrow subset of such comparisons in a way that the fallacy is not limited. LotLE×talk 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another sentence as been repeatedly inserted into the "Critics of Israel or really bad" soapbox. Namely: "The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia describes this comparison as an example of how criticism of Israel crosses the line into outright anti-Semitism."

I've looked at this a dozen times, trying to catch the glimpse of how you might look at it from just the right angle to find it even slightly related to the topic of this artilce. I just can't manage to squint my eyes in the right way. I'm confident the reason is that this sentence is wholly and entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, but only constitutes political advocacy on an unrelated topic. There might be a Misplaced Pages article where the sentence is relevant, but it's not this one. The point of this article is not to argue about whether Zionism/Israel is good or bad. For that matter, it is not even to advocate the position that Nazism is bad (though obviously, that assumption is implicit in the possibility of committing the fallacy). It's to discuss a particular variant of Argumentum ad Miseracordiam named in the article title. Whether or not criticism of Israel is anti-semitic isn't even within a stone's throw of relevance to the topic at hand. LotLE×talk 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, of course, that some (as in not all) comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany are about the Holocaust period. Showing an example of the one thing hardly has any relevance to the fact that many or most comparisons are not so.

Whether or not making a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in relation to Israel is anti-semitic seems to be purely WP:OR on your part, GHcool. The source you cite lends no support for that notion. Rather, that external source just criticizes critics of Israel. Which is fine for the source to do, and might even be relevant to some Misplaced Pages article. But it most pointedly does not say anything about whether the critics-of-Israel commit the fallacy of this article, nor about whether committing such a fallacy would necessarily be anti-semitic. I know that as a personal matter, those are claims you would like to advance; however, this is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. LotLE×talk 23:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The point that is extremely frustrating, GHcool, is that you obvious want this to be an article about how bad antisemitism is, and about your belief that critics of Israel are antisemitic (you state as much on your user page). In contrast, I want the article to be about a logical fallacy, in the realm of rhetoric or philosophy. Unfortunately for you, the actual topic of the article is the one that I am aiming for, not the political platform you wish to rail in favor of. It's just disruption for you to insert these soapboxes... and moreover, you've violated WP:3RR in blind reversions of irrelevant material. LotLE×talk 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, my restorations of (mostly) relevant material were not as blind as this revision in which I fixed a grammatical typo ("the comparison alleged might be" as opposed to "the alleged comparison might be") which Lulu decided to revert along with the rest of my edit.

Secondly, the claim that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia does not call the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in anti-Semitic in relation to Israel is simply untrue. I direct Lulu to the following passages of the cited document: "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel ... could include: ... rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." (the point is first made on page 7, but repeated in no uncertain terms on pages 22, 32, 42, 44, and 81).

Thirdly, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, as I'm sure Lulu already knows. The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, in the opinion of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and most of the other people who have written on this topic such as Bernard Lewis and Mitchell Bard, is anti-Semitic in this context.

I have taken the liberty of reverting Lulu's reversion. I trust that once he/she reads the report and considers my arguments, he/she will not blindly revert again. At the very least, I trust that he/she will discuss the issue here rather than engage in a revert war. --GHcool (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this harmful blind reversion in violation of WP:3RR. Neither the report you cite, nor the Lewis quoted gives any indication of any connection whatsoever to the logical fallacy of this article. Your user page clearly states that you edit with a highly partisan agenda in relationship to Israel/Zionism, and it is obvious that you are mostly subverting a mostly unrelated topic to try to push a certain POV issues. This has crossed well over the line of bad faith editing.

If you were to read the changes I made rather than just reverting, you would see that I have taken great pains to find the nugget of actually relevant material in the prior section to connect it with the article topic. Your approach is merely harmful to the encyclopedia, and confrontational and disrespectful to me as an editor. For example, you reverted an addition I made where I actually explained the similarity and difference between false analogy and logical fallacy. In truth, I don't think that is really necessary in the Israel section at all, but using good faith, I tried very hard to maintain some part of it that actually related to the topic.

I guess it's a good thing that GHcool does not think all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. FWIW, I would agree on that point. But that's completely irrelevant to this article topic, in any case. The relevant question—one which has an answer that is unambiguously negative—is whether a criticism that is antisemitic is thereby necessarily a case of this logical fallacy. All the material the GHcool has inserted is essentially variation on the claim that "so-and-so critic of Israel is antisemitic"... not a single part of what s/he has put in has any relation to the actual logical fallacy though. I would be more than happy to stipulate that everyone who GHcool thinks is antisemitic actually is (for purposes of this article talk page anyway); what is missing is any effort whatsoever to relate that allegation to the topic of this article. Maybe over at a different article like antisemitism it would be relevant, but not here! LotLE×talk 03:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what your saying now. I realize now that we have been talking at cross purposes. I apologize for the misunderstanding and realize that you make a valid point.

You have convinced me that the Bernard Lewis and George Gallaway stuff isn't on topic because, although it addresses the fallacious nature of the comparison, it does not address the fallacious nature of the logic. I'm re-editing the section now with what I believe is a good compromise between what I believe is on topic and what you believe is on topic.

If you don't mind, I'd prefer if we keep this dispute between us. I think now that I understand your point, it will be easier to hammer something out together. Perhaps we can do away with the RfC. --GHcool (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to get as much input from editors as possible. I think as more people chime in with similar perspective to what I've been trying to explain, it will become clearer to you. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident here. Your newest edit consisted of a few reverted elements, all worse than what I had edited:

• Stylistically, the extra wordiness in the enumeration of places where cartoons have been published is just poor writing. Likewise with the odd "abroad" that is a confusing and unnecessary indexical (where "abroad" is depends on where the reader is).
• The phrase "during the Holocaust" is confusing and misleading for the reasons I've explained in great detail.
• The European Monitoring Centre thing, that I've discussed in great detail, is precisely the misleading sentence that concerns me most. It is about something unrelated to this article, which merely is a topic GHcool would like to address for personal reasons.
• Even a tiny thing like Wikilinking "appeal to emotion" erases my correction. That term is already linked earlier in the article, and WP:MOS urges against such redundant linking.

The thing is, I really did make each of the changes I made for a good reason. Rolling them back whole cloth (or even by whole paragraphs, even if not entire section) is disrespectful; and worse, it makes the article worse in each and every case. LotLE×talk 09:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm willing to accept all of your arguments about the first paragraph except I think you're making a mistake about the "during the Holocaust" thing. Almost all of the reductio ad Hitlerum things I've seen compare Israel in 2000s to Germany in the 1940s. Consider:

• "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943." - George Galloway
• The Muslim Student Union of UC Irvine holds an event titled "Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust."
• Protest signs reading "Save the Jews Palestinians in Warsaw Gaza," "Gaza: a big concentration camp," "1939 - Auschwitz. 2009 - Gaza," ""Stop Israel's Holocaust," "Holocaust by Holocaust Survivors," "Stop the Nazi Genocide in Gaza," "Nazi Genocide, Israeli Genocide," ""Upgrade to Holocaust Version 2.0," and "Stop the Israeli Holocaust on Gaza."
• "The Holocaust, that is what is happening right now in Gaza." - Hugo Chavez
• "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany." a Norwegian diplomat based in Saudi Arabia

I can find literally dozens more. The comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany during the Holocaust is unquestionably prevalent and worth noting. --GHcool (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The large majority of comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany that I've seen make comparisons with Germany in the 1930s. I.e., roughly, "This is what Israel is like now... the danger is of it becoming like Germany in the 1940s." Obviously, I can find dozens, hundreds, or thousands of such comparisons; equally obvious is that other comparisons also have been made over time. Of course, my experience of these things is over decades, not restricted to the WP:NEWS story in this month's current events magazine. It's conceivable that during the last month, and the latest Gaza pogroms, the comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto specifically have made an upward blip in the decades-long rhetorical pattern. In any case, this insistence on pretending that all comparisons are of one narrow sort (and that all commit the fallacy of this article, whether or not there's any evidence of such) continues to show that GHcool want this article as a soapbox for his politics, not as an article about logic and reasoning (which is the actual topic). LotLE×talk 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with "during or before the Holocaust." Thank you, Lulu. I consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallacies and analogies

The point of the European Monitoring Centre thing is not to show that Israel/Zionism is good or bad (that is an entirely separate debate). The point is that making the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in this context is considered racist/xenophobic. As for the claim that "during the Holocaust" is not part of the fallacy, I direct Lulu to George Gallaway's comment: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943." --GHcool (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you try to explain this in terms so simple that someone with a philosophy doctorate like myself can understand the alleged fallacy?! Apparently George Gallaway made an analogy between the recent Gaza war and the Warsaw Ghetto. I get that, and the fact he did so seems well cited. When do we get to the logical fallacy part (and what reliable third-party source, ideally, characterizes it so)?! The fallacy required a consequent in the analogy, not only an antecedent. For example, I think this would be an example of the actual fallacy, if someone claimed it:

1. Gazan's in 2009 are similar to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto;
2. It was good for the Warsaw Jews to resist the Nazi occupation with armed force
3. Therefore, it is good for Hamas in Gaza to resist Israeli action by firing missles into southern Israel.

Of course, Gallaway is not the hypothetical person who performed this fallacy. Presenting it as "Lulu's hypothetical" would be WP:OR (though perhaps within bounds of a reasonable example if the article did not already have less contentious ones). Simply writing, as GHcool does, that Gallaway (or whomever) must be a really bad antisemite in his criticisms of Israel, is unrelated to the topic here. LotLE×talk 03:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no need to include incomplete examples of statements that might have been extended into full Reductio ad Hitlerum had the speaker made one additional assertion. Let's keep the European Monitoring Centre bit out. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Relevance of accusations of antisemitism

A large part of this article is devoted to an unrelated discussion of whether and which critics of Israel may be antisemitic

While at least one editor apparently feels strongly that various criticisms of Israel—specifically ones that somehow mention Nazi policies—are antisemitic, that matter is unrelated to formal logical fallacy that this article addresses. At most, the additions of that editor constitute allegations that various opinion columnist make false or just bad analogies. However, a false statement is not a logical fallacy, nor for that matter is an offensive political argument by virtue only of its offensiveness.

By adding these irrelevant digressions into debates of Zionism, antisemitism, Israeli policy, etc. this article is greatly harmed because readers unfamiliar with the logical fallacy have difficulty separating the philosophical core from general and wide-ranging political arguments and positions. The purpose of any section of this article should be to illustrate the concept it discusses, not to defend the WP:TRUTH of some political position editors think is really, really important.

Apart from destruction of some useful WP:MOS cleanups (time indexicals, tone, scope, etc) this diff shows the issue. User:GHcool introduces a variety of extraneous material merely claiming various people are antisemitic without in any way touching on the topic of this particular article. LotLE×talk 03:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you. Let's keep the article about the fallacy by holding to very simple and easily understood examples. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

it seems to me that this whole section belongs in the false analogy page, not here. a false analogy is described as equating two things while "deliberately ignor(ing) critical differences." reductio ad hitlerum is described as saying, "hitler/gestapo/ did x, therefore x is bad." basically:

1. the version of this that i believe editors are trying to apply here is "the israelis are doing things that are similar to what hitler did, therefore israel is like the nazis"

2. this seems to be a similarity/analogy, not a guilt by association argument.

3. the article itself says it is a false analogy and not the fallacy discussed on the page.

4. i would support more examples on the false analogy page, in fact on all of the fallacy pages, as fallacies can be hard to identify at times. untwirl (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples Section - Biased?

The "Linking acceptance of evolution with Nazism" section, while overall true, has a rather liberal slant to the text, and does not note the frequency of radical evolutionists linking Christianity and conservatism with Nazism. (Ironically, it does, to a degree, use Reductio ad Hitlerum logic to demonize conservatives, but I digress.) The section also veers off into bashing "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for much longer than is necessary to illustrate an example. One or two quick, concise sentences should be enough -- a paragraph at most, seeing as it is only one section of the film. --24.118.16.231 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Edit: Sorry -- that was a stupid comment; it may be unjust, but it's not Reductio ad Hitlerum logic. I really need to think thrice before clicking "Save Page".

I think that since the film Expelled is a relatively widely known example of use of the fallacy, it is worth mentioning. But I agree that the mention could be trimmed. We don't need to debate the relative merits of evolution and creationism, nor of conservative and liberal or whatever, in this article. If we had a well-cited example to support the anon's allegation that the fallacy is used in characterizing creationists, we could include that (I am not aware of such usage, but it is possible). LotLE×talk 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the example should stand - though anytime we include an "real-life examples" section to an article on logical falacies we are probably just creating an environment prone to bias. However, the "Expelled" example does go on FAR too long, to the point of becoming irrelevant to the article's subject matter. I would suggest deleting the portion following "Richard Dawkins," or, barring that, at least deleting the last sentence of that example. merlinus12 (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (GMT)

Image copyright problem with File:AntiWarRallyFeb162003-2.jpg

The image File:AntiWarRallyFeb162003-2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is now a fair use rationale on the page. I'd appreciate it if we can restore it back to the article. I will do so tomorrow unless there are any other concerns. --GHcool (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The image never did seem particularly relevant to the article. It seems very tendentious and tenuous to suppose that the sign or the protester illustrated the logical fallacy discussed in this article. It mostly seemed to only illustrate "people who disagree politically with GHcool", which is neither here nor there.

Now that I see the somewhat bogus fair use rationale, it definitely does not belong here. In particular, it is certainly not the case that no free image could substitute for this one, which is claimed in the rationale. This ain't any kind of one-of-a-kind image; pictures of protests are dime-a-dozen, and there's nothing very special about the rally photographed in the unfree image. LotLE×talk 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You see it is not so simple.

This article is about (that is what I understand), the fallacy that anything that Hitler has done is bad because Hitler is bad, an error of logic, but I've tried to give examples to why it is not so simple, this contribution has been censored, removed, arbitrarily? tries to give examples of why Hitler and Jews is not the only horror story in the world, this is in principle the very thing that this article too tries to inform, that suffering of humans is belittled by ad nauseum references to Hitler. The reference to Roma is given as they were the ones who at least suffered as much as the Jews at the hands of Hitler, how Europe treating them now?

I wish to have the my previous post back as it is definitely not non-article talk. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your earlier contribution was not clearly about improving this article. Instead, it was a rant about how there have been other evils in the world besides Hitler, how other world leaders have been responsible for great killings and horrible wrongs and not been held accountable. Such discussion has nothing to do with the Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. If you have something to add about the usage or history of this logical fallacy, stick around. If you simply wish to correct the point of view that Hitler was the worst world leader that has ever existed, you're in the wrong place. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And don't add hidden text to this page... it doesn't do anybody any good. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The hidden text was for your good if you had the intentions to bring my post to the surface, all you would have need to do was to remove the insert hidden comments tag. You did not.

The whole premise of Reductio ad Hitlerum is that Hitler is evil personified, my question is does he tower over everybody to such as extent to assume this premise? Is my contribution WP:SOAPBOX, do you - Binksternet have the Hitler like right to search and remove such posts even if it is, without inasmuch as by your leave, my experience with wikipedia is bad in these respects and I am not going to play the edit war game, it is a pity that even the talk pages have been encroached by those who have the means to muzzle views that they do not like. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If your aim was toward improving the article, even if I didn't agree with it, I would not have deleted your contribution here. Instead, your intent appeared to be to spread a point of view that you think should be shared. This talk page is not a general discussion forum about Hitler or about any political leader who has committed evil deeds, and your point of view about such subjects does not belong.

Try this: find an expert author who describes Reductio ad Hitlerum the way you would like to see it described here in this article. Once you find such a source, you will be able to add something to this article and provide a reference to back it up. Without a reference, you have nothing that will stick. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yogesh Khandke, I read your deleted text that ends "and the moral of the story is..." That text doesn't belong here. This isn't the place for stories. This isn't the place for moral lessons. This is where we discuss how to make the article more encyclopedic. The text you put here was appropriate for a blog but it is not appropriate for here. If it makes you feel better, yeah, we know there are people who were as bad as Hitler. It's not the point of the article. Hitler is more famous, and had a distinctive appearance, and was the mastermind behind a particularly large-scale atrocity and well-known, and people have seen movies of him shouting, and his name is easy to pronounce, so people refer to him often. That's the point of the article: people often compare people to Hitler and that comparison has been given a name. Misplaced Pages isn't here to support the "Reductio ad Hitlerum" argument nor to refute it. Misplaced Pages is here to explain it and tell you what has been published about it. Now what is with calling an fellow editor Hitler like because he deleted text you wrote? That comparison would be defamatory if it wasn't just ridiculous. Please think. --Boston (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

By moral of the story I meant, the summary of the above. This is the talk page and not the article, Hitler is more famous etc. is just a perception, people does not mean only Americans and Englishmen, New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians even in English language wikipedia, I used Hitler like as I knew there would be a strong retaliation, once I had just rearranged text on a talk page, not an alphabet was changed, I was berated strongly for that, talk page is views and discussion, if somebody does not like what is written or considers it inappropriate, it should be marked as such, not subject to this Hitler like removal. We can have discussions like Ghandi (I guess they mean Gandhi) was not as good as Hitler was bad, and loads of similar stuff, but not what I have written. Rules are always applied arbitrarily in the real world and here. We have a saying "One carries the stick, owns the buffalo", as long as the stick is in your hands, you can force your perception on the world, make rules that apply to others but not to you etc.

Apparently using the phrase Hitler like can make me liable for legal action where you live, I am not sure it is so serious where I am. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A few simple questions,

1. Who has the rights to delete inappropriate content on a discussion page?
2. What is the procedure for executing such deletes?
3. Does the person who carried out the deletes in my case have such rights?
4. If he does, did he follow the steps necessary to carry the deletes?
5. If the answer to 3 and 4 is negative, what action can be taken against the said person?

That is the moral of the story, a summary of what I have to say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, "defamation" isn't an exclusively legal term and I said your comment was not defamatory, it was ridiculous. Secondly, I wish you would get the point that your comments weren't censored. They were blatantly irrelevant. Anyone can remove blatantly irrelevant context. You can too. I don't know the procedure to go complaining about it but I can assure you if you waste your time doing that you'll be even more disappointed and frustrated by the outcome. I don't even care much if your comments are deleted or if they remain on this page -- the only problem is they would encourage people by example to make similar irrelevant comments about other subjects on other pages. I'm not your enemy. You made a good point, but chose the wrong place to make it. My main hope is that you might understand this and let the matter rest. --Boston (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If I do not like something on a talk page I would add my comment, or ignore it, won't delete. However as you have written, it is best I let the matter rest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No sources discuss Israel/Nazi comparisons as this fallacy

Not a single source used in the israel section discusses this fallacy - only that those comparisons are "taboo" or "antisemitic". this does not belong on this page. untwirl(talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just added one. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

great. summarize that source re:barbed wire and remove the rest as it is original research. untwirl(talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I summarized the source, and I agreed with Timurite's removal of the unsupported ad hominem section. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

GHcool added the WP:OR stuff back in again, saying that the material is referenced. I hold that the references prove only the existence of Israeli/Nazi comparisons but that they don't demonstrate the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy of logic. I will attempt to examine each such reference here:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3136059.stm Interpreting Egypt's anti-semitic cartoons. A quote: "Mohammed Khalil, who teaches Mass Communications at Cairo University, says depicting Israelis as Nazis is legitimate political commentary." This is not fallacy.
• http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/5276_94.htm ADL Says Libyan U.N. Representative's Remarks Equating Israel With Nazi Germany 'Deeply Insulting'. A quote: "There can be no comparison between Israel's effort to defend its citizens against terrorism and the Nazis' systematic killing of six million Jews in the Holocaust," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director." This is not fallacy.
• http://www.forward.com/articles/9042/ The Featherman File. This article is used by GHcool to support the phrase "These comparisons commit the fallacy", meaning the previous two comparisons found in the bbc and adl websites. The Featherman File does not even mention the preceding arguments. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The creationism and American political sections are also about fallacious comparisons to Nazis. Most of the time, the comparison between X and Nazis are not formal fallacies. Usually they take the form of an insult with a vague explanation. For example, I could say, "Misplaced Pages editors sometimes silence information. Silencing information is engaging in Nazi-like behavior. Therefore, Misplaced Pages editors sometimes engage in Nazi-like behavior." If I wrote something as ridiculous as that, I would be guilty of committing a reductio ad Hitlerum, even though the argument is a formally valid syllogism. The Israeli/Nazi comparison is so common that it deserves background. --GHcool (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: My edit was deleted because it was thought that it violated WP:NPA. I did not intend for it to be a personal attack, but I can appreciate that it probably wasn't the best way to phrase it. I'm restoring the comment and replacing what was once considered a personal attack with a new italicized phrase. Again, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feeling or if I behaved improperly. --GHcool (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The current edit seems acceptable, however I think the title of the example would be more accurate as "Linking Israeli policy with Nazis" rather than Israelis as a people. Mekeretrig (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The section title has been changed to "Detention camps in Israel and Nazi Germany" so your suggestion no longer applies. However, if the former title is brought back, I think plural Nazis is perfectly mated to plural Israelis; the comparison and linking of the two is the whole point. Using the phrase "Israeli policy" weakens the concept to nothingness. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There still hasn't been any citation or explanation that actually connects the topic of this article with the whole Israel-is-good-and-only-antisemites-deny-it soapbox that GHcool has inserted repeatedly (most recently in blatant violation of WP:3RR). It is true that various people have used the word "Nazi" and the word "Israel" in the same sentence or paragraph, but that's about as close to the actual fallacy as any version of the section has ever come (and no, that really ain't very close). It has been far too long with this digression in the article, and it just does not belong here since no one can show any citational support for its inclusion. LotLE×talk 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is correct unless the example can be properly supported with sources that reference the fallacy. Otherwise the edit is just controversial and seems to be original research and conjecture. Mekeretrig (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think GHcool is right in that the comparison is common enough to merit a mention. This recent article by Gideon Levy might be relevant, although I'm sure there are others. -- Nudve (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH /WP:OR

I am afraid that the bulk of the article is synthesis and discourse based on small sample of occasional references, especially in section "Fallacious nature of the argument", as well as in sections which evaluate various examples. Timurite (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

rm soapbox picture as original research and bad example

Someone did rm the soapbox-picture showing a Israel-flag Nazi-flag comparision (anti-Gaza-bombing-protests) before I could. Here is why I would: reason (1) this is not an example of the fallacy, and (2) the association with RaH here is original research.
(1) To compare is correct as a logic element. There are multiple logic valid statements that draw a comparision between Israel and Nazi behaviour Robinson. This is a researchable, academic exercise. Maybe a certaint research has flaws - then it's up to the scientific way to improve the research (not here), not claim it as illogic/fallacy. Maybe the conclusions are not welcome - swallow it, don't it.
(2) Stating that any Israel-Nazi-combination is a RaH is original research, because it discards correct academic research beforehand. It does not prove the therefore-step in the RaH-fallacy. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reported User:GHcool for 3RR on this here -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

rm "subtype ... Holocaust" for original research

rm the sentence A subtype of the fallacy is the comparison of an opponent's propositions to the Holocaust., the source being the source mentioned. The source does not mention the words "subtype" or "Holocaust" at all, there is no addition involved to make it a different 'type' (new element? use different?), and a "comparision" itself is not enough to declare it a RaH-fallacy beforehand (because the illogical step therefore is not mentioned/proven. The comparision could be logic). Not in the source, no supporting description and original research. Removed. -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Barbed wire"-example not a fallacy (Result: it is now)

About the Linking Israelis-Nazis section. On the barbed wire-example, the source Don't Fence Me In herewrites: For example, examining the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust, urges one to ponder how it is that the reappearance of barbed wire in the Israeli landscape does not engender an outcry among survivors.

• Please, can someone point the fallacy here?
• "a use specifically contrasted with" (wiki's text, not source's): no, not specifically. The source lists more uses of barbed wire, and other contrasts. This is just one more. And also: not contrasted, compared.
• The source writes "examining ... similarity and differences" (emphasisis by me). He's just setting up a comparision. Examining, comparing, testable.
• Then again: pointing out a contrast is not a fallacy. It's correct logic. The resulting question is a consequence of the correct logic. No reduction here.
  

As the source does not commit fallacy, the (non-)example should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Adding: Well, I should also check the sequence-source (A. Silow-Carroll) here too. This source writes in a review to the source of the (non-)example: Logical Fallacy Alert: The Nazis used barbed wire. Israelis use barbed wire. Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis. Or so goes a throwaway premise in Neve Gordon’s review.

• The "or so" gives it away: a new construction of the original text. .
• Also, the quote "Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis" does not appear in the original text at all. This source not reliable. Will delete right now, of course. -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Stroked, not a red herring. (+ mimor typo) -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Silow-Carroll's words are the whole reason for the paragraph comparing Israelis to Nazis. He pointed out what he saw as Gordon's fallacy. Whether a fallacy or not does not matter. Calling his analysis faulty is not for us to say. He got it in print, it's out there in public. We can use it as an example of what reductio ad Hitlerum means to a magazine writer. Restored. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Silow-Carroll made up the "Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis" part has no bearing on whether he is reliable as a source. He is describing his take on Gordon's prose. His view can't be struck down because he makes Gordon sound trite by incorrectly paraphrasing or by putting words in Gordon's mouth. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your point about 'contrasted' vs. 'compared'. I put 'compared' into the text. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now I get it! It surely needed an explanation. So now I take a 180-degree turn on this: the Silow-Carroll-quote is the example of the RaH-fallacy. It is not a supporting evidence or so. Thanx Binksternet. -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote the section more towards the example, i.e. Silow-Carroll's remark. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying by removing unnecessary words: imo the Silow-Carroll-quote (and the reference to it in the text) "Or so goes a throwaway premise ..." could be omitted here for irrelevance. But I won't do it myself, I could miss a point. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Since I understand the example here, I suggest (again) we give the Silow-Carroll-(S-C)-part a more prominent place, i.e. at the beginning. The backgrounds 1 & 2 then are only minor illustrations. Imo background 1 is the Gordon-review, and that one has the book as a background 2. So 1 and 2 are of very minor interest, more like a footnote. This is more so, because S-C constructs the RaH-sentence himself (openly). It can even stand on its own, as we do not care (here) about the correctness of the quote itself: S-C's original resource is OK (as Binksternet made clear above).
I skip for now that including the intro "Warning fallacy ahead" is not clarifying the example, it might wrongfoot a first reader.
I will illustrate my idea in an edit. Not to editwar, I'll be back here -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reverse-chron construction is jarring to me since I composed the previous chronological version, so let me mull it over and try to understand it from a first-time reader's perspective, with an eye to teaching about RaH. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. My thought is that the example should be prominent, we could even do without the prior happenings, chron less important here. The example is OK!, as you made clear above. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Meant to sound more positive. So: Go ahead, you're invited! I'm interested in whatever the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK as it is now. Make the final sentence blockquote? -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While the insertion of the Silow-Carroll comment really does still feel like a WP:SOAPBOX attempt to shoehorn in some pro-Israel boosterism into an unrelated article, it is narrowly true that S-C at least alleges the specific fallacy that the article is about. Whether S-C is right in his analysis isn't really for us to judge, since that would be WP:OR. The problem remaining here is really just WP:WEIGHT: one comment by someone reviewing a book review in 2002 is pretty obscure as a way to squeeze out a section heading.

I think I'll probably take out these headings, since "Alleged examples" is probably perfectly fine as a heading to encompass fewer than a half-dozen paragraphs.LotLE×talk 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I liked the "micro-subsection headings"; I thought they were very helpful to readers. The little headings made for a quick dive into the part of the article the reader was most interested in. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Only useful if you want to "dive into" vague insinuations that the examples encompass every mention of "X plus Hitler", where the breadth of the heading vastly overreaches the limited scope of the narrow example. In any case, it's completely against WP:STYLE to have headings for such short sections. LotLE×talk 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dog Latin all?

The intro mentions it is Dog Latin, that is not regular Latin but, say, Englishised Latin. Is that correct for all the bold titles used:

• Reductio ad Hitlerum, also
• argumentum ad Hitlerum, or
• reductio ad Nazium (or
• argumentum ad Nazium) – dog Latin
  

Could someone confirm or denounce a dog latin? I think, if the word is conjugated correctly, it is Latin. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations" section entirely OR

In its current form, the "allegations" section would appear to entirely consist of original research (with the possible exception of example 1 - Barbed Wire). The only people making the "allegation" that these individuals have committed this logical fallacy (from the available evidence) are the authors of the section. While I do agree that each of the three might be an example of the fallacy in action, it seems those sort of judgments are outside of the scope of an encyclopedia article and more appropriate to an op-ed piece.

The nature this fallacy lies in unwarranted comparisons to Hitler. Deciding which cases are truly unwarranted and which are justified necessarily requires a judgment call which, when applied to a living individual who has at least a modest following, is bound to be controversial and viewed as biased by a significant number of people. As such, a section details these episodes - barring evidence that the allegation of fallacy is being leveled by a notable third party in verifiable form - is inherently inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

We should probably delete this section, and possibly replace it with a section detailing "Examples" which are purely hypothetical, unless the editors can find a citation of someone other than wikipedia referring to these individuals as having committed "reductio ad hitlerum" - preferably IN THOSE WORDS.

Barring objection, I intend to enact this proposed change in 3 days in accordance with WP:Be Bold and WP:OR. - merlinus12 (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely objection. We provide pretty good citation of those allegations actually being made in all the cases listed. I don't really see the the point of merlinus12's comment. LotLE×talk 22:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit strange as well that a new editor, with no edits other than this talk page, is quoting policies quite so proficiently. It sort of reads like a deceptive intention to the above comment. LotLE×talk 22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The section doesn't merit deletion. It serves a good purpose as a point of reference so that the reader can see how this concept has been applied by others. Note that your WP:BRD cycle is foreshortened with your decision to D (discuss) first, obviating the other two intrusive steps. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have looked through the references for the "Allegations" section again, after reading your remarks. (BTW - brand new editor, no idea if I'm quoting policies correctly here. Should I have just gone ahead and made the edit before discussing?) I see that you all have provided great documentation for people alleging that, for instance, George W. Bush is comparable to Hitler. We're good on that score. However, given the nature of this topic - a logical fallacy - we would not only need to show that "X claims Y is Hitler" but that "X claims Y is Hitler, and the context dictates that the comparison is inappropriate" for it to be a proper example. By placing these people in a section listing examples of fallacious thinking, you have not only identified the (quite objective) fact that they said someone else is comparable to Hitler in some way, but that they were using the comparison to make an unjustified emotional appeal (a conclusion which, while probably true in each case, is nonetheless subjective and undoubtedly controversial). What would be great in this section is examples of people alleging, not that "other people=Hitler," but alleging that "other people are using the fallacy by saying that people=Hitler." Also if one of more of you could help me understand these policies a little better (where would it be appropriate to discuss that?), I'd appreciate it. - merlinus12 (talk) 5:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I do agree it would be nice to have a more explicit 3rd party who says "The comparison made by X is a RaH". Unfortunately, the fallacy seems to be relatively little known by name, or at least its somewhat satirical naming tends to make it unused in most discussions. In regard to Exposed, I think Dawkin's criticisms of the film come pretty darn close to saying the filmmakers commit RaH, but indeed he doesn't actually name the fallacy as such. It's almost unfortunate that the kerfuffle about the barbed-wire book is the most explicit thing we found of someone naming the fallacy in outside sources, since the whole Israel tangent is mostly an effort by some partisans to get in some stuff opposing criticism of Israel/Zionism... but they did find a (minor) source that names the fallacy (almost, it's called a fallacy, but not quite explicitly RaH by name). Better examples would be very welcome. LotLE×talk 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

Where is the logical fallacy? Banning smoking was something Hitler did, and is a totalitarian action. The Facist was the first modern leader to propose such a policy. Could not the example be changed to vegetarianism, which is less controversial.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In short, banning smoking requires a totalitarian state with a disregard for individual liberty,and a network of informers. It was also important to Hitler, and his Nazi party. I repeat that I do not think it is a good example.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have changed the lede example to eating sugar, which seems much more neutral, and was already in the article93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I was a big fan of the smoking example, but I have to admit your sugar example is better, because it is such a trivial matter. Tying our example to a real issue of Hitler's time isn't as clean. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The smoking-ban example is a very good one because it is an issue about which people actually have heated arguments, and try (well or poorly) to reason about the right policy actions. The sugar thing is very difficult to get a grasp on since it is not clear who might argue what, or why, and it provides no handle on the types of arguments (and fallacies) that discussants actually make. The smoking-ban thing has a nice structure since (a) many reasonable people (including me) support various bans on smoking, especially in public spaces; (b) Nazis apparently supported a similar policy; (c) opponents of these bans really do lean on that analogy; (d) the similarity of action between, say, Nazi Germany and New York State, does not actually carry the logical force purported to it. You really can't get any of that relevance out of the sugar thing (I guess a couple high schools have removed vending machines of high-sugar foods; but you'd need a lot more context to even see what the analogy/disanalogy was). LotLE×talk 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a version of this article which used Hitler's stated (but not total) vegetarianism as the example? Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism could be a good example too or instead. That's also a thing which people actually debate, in a way similar to smoking. I haven't really heard of legislative requirements around vegetarianism though, which still makes the smoking example seem a little be more compelling. LotLE×talk 19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Banning smoking is a bad example, because it is a policy that was pioneered by the Nazi's, with a strong link to their programme of creating a healthy masterace. Hitler was a former smoker, who decided to stop other's from smoking once he had stopped himself. Describing such comparisons as "logical fallacys" is controversial. Pro-Choice groups have made much use of the Nazi link, and it is worth covering in the article - see http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/17/5/289 for a pro ban analysis - however given that there are complex arguments on both sides, and it is not mentioned else where in the article, it is innapropriate in the lede. I still think the sugar example best expresses the idea of Reductio ad Hitlerum, as it is obviously irrelevant. It has also been used to illustrate a definition elsewhere - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Smoking is a good example precisely because "there are complex arguments on both sides". To give readers a sense of the fallacy, it is self-defeating to give an example (like sugar) that is weirdly formal without any grip on how actual arguments happen! An argumentum ad miseracordiam like this only functions because people are invested in the outcomes, if the example is strictly formal, readers will not understand the point. LotLE×talk 23:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But the article does not investigate, or mention, the validity of the argument. Given that sugar has been repeatedly used, and that such a tactic would derail an argument about sugar, why not use it, or one of the following definitions - "If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..."

-- Thomas Fleming, editor, Chronicles (Rockford, Illinois), May 2000, p. 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to sugar, given the 2:1 support for it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Sections

I can't find any reducio ad hitlerum claimed in the sources for the following, so have relocated it here. "The Reductio ad Hitlerum has been used in criticisms of United States Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, and against 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain. For example, A Penn State trustee compared Reagan's rhetoric when addressing a Young Americans for Freedom chapter to Adolf Hitler indoctrinating the Hitler Youth. If the audience is meant to derive an equivalence between the two addressed organizations, this would constitute the fallacy; comparing the speakers' rhetoric alone might be a hyperbolic or bad analogy, but would not be an instance of the fallacy itself."93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The following passage, and source, makes no mention of hitler, so have removed it here. "Neve Gordon, in a 2002 book review of Olivier Razac's Barbed Wire: A Political History, questioned why: "the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust does not engender an outcry among survivors." In a January 2003 response to this review, Andrew Silow-Carroll alleged Gordon's use of Reductio ad Hitlerum with, "Logical Fallacy Alert: The Nazis used barbed wire. Israelis use barbed wire. Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis." "93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Note the phrase Hitler (or the Nazis) in the lead section. Mention of Hitler is not required to have reductio ad Hitlerum. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. However, please check the references to the first section, as they seem not to compare methods, as well as being pretty obscure.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Need for balance in the lede

I suggest adding the following sections. At the moment the lede says that to compare any politician's or political party's behaviour to Hitler's or the Nazi party is a logical fallacy. I cannot see why it could not be an accurate comparison. It fails to address the issue of intent, on behalf of the user and the identifier- ie that valid comparisons are dismissed by the wide misuse.

"If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..."

The name does not make any statement about whether reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but reflects the emotional effect Nazi and Hitler comparisons have, and the disruptive effect on debate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be classified as a semiotic term of political debate, rather than philosophy.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

wrong direction fallacy?

Is this appropriate - how does this relate to "Hitler ate sugar, so sugar is bad" - would it mean that hitler was bad, because he ate sugar? "Wrong direction is a logical fallacy of causation where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more violent."93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ad Hilterum = ad hominem?

Isn't this whole article just about an example of argumentum ad hominem? What encyclopaedic benefit does dedicating such an article to Hitler have? Are there even any formal references to the term "reductio ad Hitlerum" or similar other than the cited Natural Right and History?

This really looks like Godwin's Law applied to ad hominem to me. I argue the article should be deleted.

- Man in shack (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the coinage of "reductio ad hitlerum" by Strauss preceded Godwin's invention of his law by 37 years, it's a little hard to see RaH as an "application" of Godwin's Law (apparently this coinage was also 3 years before Godwin was born, though presumably Godwin was not coining any candidate laws during his infancy, in any case). LotLE×talk 08:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Although it was coined a long time ago, I am not sure that it pre-dates Godwin's law in usage. This article makes very little reference to Strauss, and expands the phrase to mean something very different to what he wrote. For example, it seeks to cover comparisons to Nazi policies. I think it should be reduced to a stub, in line with the French version.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was certainly familiar with the phrase RaH prior to 1990 (but then, I was an academic philosopher), used since then in pretty much the sense discussed in this article. Not that this article is great; but it is odd for a new, anonymous editor to suggest reducing an article to a stub (rather than expanding and improving it). In truth, however, I think this article is about the length it ever should be. There's no reason for it to become some sort of 5000 word monstrosity detailing every usage of the term ever, but neither is there any reason to make it shorter than it is. Fixing the French version would be a worthwhile project though, if your French is good enough to do that (mine is not). LotLE×talk 00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing for over a year. Please explain what is wrong with the French version, it seems much better than this one, and I don't think it needs fixing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Olivier Razac

I have included the whole of the relevant paragraph from Olivier Razac's review, in the interest of neutrality.

Explicating and trying to understand the continued widespread use of barbed wire could have added an additional dimension to this fascinating book. For example, examining the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust, urges one to ponder how it is that the reappearance of barbed wire in the Israeli landscape does not engender an outcry among survivors."

93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the seventeen prior discussions of this topic. Some certain WP:SOAPBOXers have tried to give far, far WP:UNDUE weight to the entire pro-/anti-Zionism matter. That isn't the topic of this article, and is not even particularly important or interesting as an example of where RaH may (or may not) have been made. A large blockquote gives this matter far too much emphasis, where the trimmed version perfectly well explains why there is some relevance of the Gordon/Silow debate to this article (which is the only aspect worth including here).

However, Anon, the other quote you added about Classicism seems perfectly helpful, and a welcome addition. LotLE×talk 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The full quote gives the context, and was used in full in the criticism cited. The selective editing of the quote to "the only aspect worth including here" violates neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you are describing is known as "copyright violation". It is our affirmative, and in fact legal, obligation to use the minimal necessary portions of quotes to illustrate the specific point we use them for.

I am a bit concerned about the additions you have made, Anon, to the article in the last few hours. I want to take a closer look, but few of them seem to actually relate to RaH, but rather just to "someone or another mentioned Hitler". We should not turn this article into indifferent mush rather than discuss a logical fallacy specifically. LotLE×talk 07:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Compare your preferred version of the quote - "the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust does not engender an outcry among survivors."

- to the full quote (cited in full in the criticism). The reference to barbed wire has been removed. Why? All the sourced examples I added have been described as "Reducio ad Hitlerum".93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reinserted the missing part of the the quote. I would like to know why "Explicating and trying to understand the continued widespread use of barbed wire could have added an additional dimension to this fascinating book." should not be added, given that the critic quoted the passage in full, and the editing here seems to be OR, and POV.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

This has been used as a description of this argument. I think it should be included- any comments? http://www.theness.com/how-to-argue/93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"they have done something similar to what Hitler did" -How is this argumentum ad hitlerum?

The following example contains no logical fallacy, and is a simple comparison. Moreover it is not identified in the source as an argumentum ad hitlerum. To me it just serves to push an anti Chavez POV, and should be removed. "In 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said, “Israel criticizes Hitler a lot. So do we. But they have done something similar to what Hitler did, possibly worse, against half the world.” In their critique of the Chavez presidency and political philosophy, Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sánchez wrote in the Boston Review that the quote supports their view that "Chávez himself has been at the forefront of an effort to equate Israel with Hitler, and then to retroject Jewish conspiracy onto the Venezuelan opposition.""93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The source identifies it as a false analogy. Furthermore, "Israel=Hitler" is logically equivalent to "AIDS=Hitler," "Obama=Hitler," etc. --GHcool (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, GHcool should stop trying to coopt this article into a general pro-Israel screed, in which anyone who says anything negative about Israel is magically transformed into committing RaH. There are plenty of places (mostly not on WP) to argue the political merits of Israel, this is an article about logic and rhetoric. LotLE×talk 18:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see someone who knows so much about logic and rhetoric to use a straw man. I am not inserting "anything negative about Israel" into this article and am definitely not turning this article into a pro-Israel screed. Israel=Hitler and Obama=Hitler and AIDS=Hitler and evolution=Hitler and all of the other arguments that take the form of X=Hitler are examples of false analogies, false premises, and ad hominems that can be considered RaH's. Perhaps Lulu believes that all of the above are examples of rhetorical and logical soundness, but the sources cited in this article do not. --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT the article on false analogy. After making so many dozens of edits, it's pretty shocking that GHcool hasn't yet figured that out. Try reading the definition of RaH given in the lead to understand what it is actually about, perhaps. Just because someone claims that "X is like Hitler" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with this article (though a comparison of that sort is, indeed, a first step in the fallacy). Arguing that X isn't really "like Hitler" even though someone said it was does not mean the original statement relates to this article either, it just means that that particular WP editor (usually GHcool) disagrees with an assertion of some published source. Get yourself a blog, don't pollute WP article space with your own political posturing! ... Moreover, if GHcool had ever made one single edit that amounted to anything other than "Israel is good" (e.g. any other topic), it would be a lot easier to assume good faith. As is, it reads like one big WP:SOAPBOX that has no place on WP. LotLE×talk 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Socialism fallacy

1. "Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism: A Report Provided to the United States Congress." U.S. Department of State. March 2008. 1 June 2008.
2. ^ Shauna Moser (March 02, 2006). "Penn State Trustee Compares Reagan to Hitler". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox
4. Madonna infuriates McCain with Hitler-Mugabe sequence at Cardiff concert, Times Online, August 25, 2008
5. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/22/schiffren/index.html
6. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/15/foxs-tom-sullivan-compares-obama-to-hitler/
7. http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2009/06/09/let_526940.shtml
8. In These Times, 6 December 2002. Gordon, Neve. Don't Fence Me In. Retrieved on 9 June 2009.
9. The Forward, 3 January 2003. Silow-Carroll, Andrew. "The Featherman File." Retrieved on 9 June 2009.
10. -- Thomas Fleming, editor, Chronicles (Rockford, Illinois), May 2000, p. 11.

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles