"This page has been removed twice (ie replaced with the original redirect to Use-mention distinction). On the second occasion,  at least had the common courtesy to follow policy and provide an edit summary. Since the article was my contribution, and since I feel that Wikipedia should include an article on this subject, I am responding here.

The edit summary states: ""This page is nothing but WP:OR. There is no ""fallacy"". Best as a redirect""

The last point might have force if use/mention fallacies were defined on the redirect page, but they are not. Indeed, they are not mentioned at all. Furthermore, I can make no sense of the second point. Interpreted as ""there is no such recognised thing as a use/mention fallacy"" it is obviously false, as can easily be shown by a google search (=use mention fallacy). The first ten results alone include citable examples dating back more than three decades. (Specifically, John R Searle's December 1976 review of ""Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts"" by Jerrold M Sadock in Language: ""There seems to me to be several massive use-mention fallacies in this .... But this has the effect of building a persistent use-mention fallacy into ..."") I don't want to insult Snalwibma's intelligence by implying he or she didn't bother to try this search, but I can't otherwise understand the criticism.

I'm less sure of my ground when it comes to the allegation of WP:OR. The example isn't mine, but I got it from the oral tradition (and changed 'nigger' to 'honky', mainly because I'm white myself), so can't cite anything to justify it. But I don't accept that inventing illustrative examples counts as WP:OR. If it did, the consequences for Wikipedia would be unfortunate, for whereas it might just be possible to quote a citable definition under fair use of copyright, quoting copyrighted examples is surely not on. So contributors must invent them if we are avoid an encyclopedia of merely abstract prose that only makes sense if you already know what it means. (As if there weren't enough of that in Wikipedia already.)

Accordingly, I am minded to recreate this page with a couple of suitable citations added. -  "