This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Honorsteem (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 13 February 2012 (→February 2012: Moved to Talk:Daniel_Pipes#Moved_conversation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:13, 13 February 2012 by Honorsteem (talk | contribs) (→February 2012: Moved to Talk:Daniel_Pipes#Moved_conversation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)January 2012
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Reductio ad Hitlerum, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi thanks. See my contribution on the talk page there. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand your argument; sure, eugenics is a bad thing and it is churlish to dismiss debate of it as "reductio ad Hitlerum". All I'm drawing your attention to is the need for clarity and sourcing - a Misplaced Pages article shouldn't say "there has been criticism, concern and trouble regarding this subject, but we're not going to tell you where", it should say "person X has criticised it, group Y is concerned about it, and newspaper Z regarded it as 'troubling'". WP:WEASEL has a bit more about this. It's our duty to the reader to tell them where a reaction is coming from, and if it's seeming to come from nowhere (either because it's the opinion of the editor writing the sentence, or because it's "common sense"), we need to take a look through some newspapers and find someone who's actually said it. Does this sound reasonable? --McGeddon (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I'd add that the article doesn't really need a "criticism" section - reductio ad Hitlerum is clearly presented as a "fallacy" throughout, rather than a useful and ironclad argumentative tool. --McGeddon (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was more referring to the using of the term. If someone says "X is like the nazi's" - where X is a valid point, and then the opponent else says, "Hah! RaH!" - then the discussion is terminated. -- 11:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, people can incorrectly mistake a reasonable argument for a reductio ad Hitlerum (just as a stupid person can misidentify any argument to be any fallacy in the book), but as I say, you'll need to provide a source that's considered this particular instance remarkable, if it's going to be written about in an encyclopedia. --McGeddon (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
February 2012
Discussion moved to Talk:Daniel Pipes#Moved conversation -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)