Talk:Ad hominem/Archive 1

message: Someone needs to link to his page, it's probably the best example of Ad hominem, evAr.--I'll bring the food 13:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maddox

message: I deleted the paragraph on "political correctness" as being NNPOV. I realize that some may disagree, but to me it just looked like a screed against current-day progressive politics. Enforcement of political uniformity by shaming is nothing new, yet there was no mention of historical or right-wing usage of the technique. Perhaps if there were examples added that were anything other than both (a) current issues and (b) progressive politics, it might not be as much of an attempt to persuade the reader that left-wing politics are bad. Ironically, an ad hominem attack against the political left by attempting to paint lefties as nasty "ad hominem users." Very clever.
:I'm removing the gender section, I believe that this article is a logic article and should not contain political correctness.
::Fine, but Ad feminam and Argumentum ad feminam still redirect here. The deleted section on gender-neutrality was specifically intended to deal with these redirects. I have no wish to re-insert the deleted material (which was only ever about debunking a misconception anyway), so I will make Ad feminam into a mini-article of its own (simply to explain why the term is a load of crap). Vilĉjo 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Correctness 

message: Is there anything to be written about the legal relevance of the tu quoque argument? Nuremberg Trials mentioned that the argument was "removed" but to me it seems as if no law could accept it. --Get-back-world-respect 22:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the infamous retort "it takes one to know one" fall under this category of fallacy? --aspen 20:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tu quoque

message: Layman is right and so including “Inverted Ad Hominem” and it’s definition in the encyclopedia is completely justified.
--karl 22:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inverted Ad Hominem" 

message: This "inverted ad hominem" seems like an invented term. The description given sounds like an appeal to authority or an appeal to the people, or even a subtle ad hominem. All logical fallacies have some overlap, so this could even be considered to be a false cause fallacy, or a red herring. None of the standard sites I use for explaining logical fallacies mention "inverted ad hominem". The term appears to already be covered by a number of different, already existing fallacies. I see no legitimate reason to give such a marginal term equal credit with a standard definition as "ad hominem". If removing the term complete causes a revert war due to editor insistence of this term being mentioned, then, at the very most, put one sentence at the bottom of the article mentioning "inverted ad hominem" and give a URL to a site that defines it. Don't define it. Just mention it is a marginal term and give a URL. That's my opinion. --FuelWagon 20:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The one and only site (aside from Wikipedia and its mirrors) that defines it is a web forum on "the brights" website.  That is the forum where the guy who invented the term created it (User:Layman) and it is also the same guy who inserted it into the article.  The only support given on Wikipedia for it, other than by Layman himself, is another person who he recruited from that same forum.  This is definitely not a term you'd find in a book or website about logical fallacies.  --Nathan J. Yoder 15:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment from FuelWagon 

message: This is original research. It appears to be a new word for argumentum ad verecundiam, or something close. --Christopher Parham (talk) 01:04, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
:Indeed - credit to Nathan for being so patient - i also fail to see any difference between 'inverted' and common-or-garden ad hominem - should be removed completely. --Petesmiles 03:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another comment 

message: for years i've been bemoaning the never-ending permutations (or even just examples) of classic fallacies which some logic sites attempt to quantify with needless, official-sounding terms. similarly, i loathe the attempts by User:Layman to noodge his invented and, IMO, distorting, cutesy, and unnecessary term into the article. but fortunately for this discussion, my opinion of the term is irrelevant, as User:Njyoder correctly concluded; it's an obvious violation of wikipedia standards. argument for or against the term's value should take place somewhere other than article talk pages. thanks to nathan for taking the time to fight this battle he never should have had to.
BTW, i propose that what Aristotle called ad hominem henceforth be known as reverse polarity inverted ad hominem, and that this article be moved to that more modern title. --SaltyPig 10:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment from SaltyPig (against "inverted ad hominem") 

message: I added this synonym, although I am aware of some confusion and cross-usage of two similar phrases with different meanings:
*"Shooting (or killing) the messenger" usually refers to retaliation against the bearer of bad news.
*"Attacking the messenger" usually refer to the logical fallacy of saying we should reject an argument because of the person speaking on it's behalf.
--StuRat 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacking the messenger 

message: Is there such a thing as "pre-emptive ad hominem"? I'm not sure what it is (or should be) called. But you see it all the time. For example: "Only an idiot would think that marijuana is dangerous." This statement attacks any potential opponents before they even speak up. Anyone who disagrees is then afraid to speak their mind because to do so would be to automatically get labelled as an idiot. - Is there a name for that kind of statement? I'm pretty sure "pre-emptive ad hominem" isn't it. --163.192.21.41 18:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to classify that, but do have another example: "Only traitors would oppose the war in Iraq". The same argument could be made against any opponents of any war in which the country in question is currently engaged. --StuRat 18:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive ad hominem 

message: Layman's argumnts make my head hurt; Nathan's do not. Therefor Nathan is right. Ooh, I'll go write a wiki article about it! Kuroune 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bay's Logic Rule 

message: Just because it can legitimately be used to cast a shadow of a doubt on testimony doesn't mean that the usage is not logically fallacious.  It doesn't PROVE the testimony wrong, which is what logic needs to do. -Raijinili 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad Hominem used to discredit testimony 

message: My Latin is nearly non-existent, wht is the plural for ad hominem?  From the text on the page, and reason, an attack can be mae agianst more than one person, or a class of people, rather than an individual.  In another page the assertion was made that the argument could not be ad hominem because it applied to a whole profession, which I take to be incorrect, except as to grammar.  Midgley 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Latin plural is ad homines; however, I have never heard the term used (in English), and would expect ad hominem to be used even where the reference is to more than one person, or an entire group (e.g. a profession). Vilcxjo 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the Latin plural for argumentum ad hominem (multiple attacks, each against a single person) would be argumenta ad hominem. For a single attack on multiple people, it would be (as Vilcxjo said) argumentum ad homines. For multiple attacks on multiple people: argumenta ad homines. --Malirath 20:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: I'm a bit perplexed by:
:Ironically, accusing an opponent of ad hominem can itself be an example of ad hominem if it is worded as an insult: "I'm not going to stand here and let him insult me!" or "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win." or "Since he is out of good argument, he's attacking me." (partial Argument from silence)
I get it, except for the "My opponent is resorting to logical fallacy to win" bit being an example of ad hominem.  Is it the "to win" part that makes it so?  Surely pointing out that your opponent is using fallacious reasoning is not always ad hominem? Would that not result in all logical arguments being ad hominem, since they are but steps away from implying that the other person is using fallacious reasoning? --TreyHarris 23:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointing out fallacy as ad hominem? 

message: :"This form of the argumentum ad hominem is..." 
It is unclear which particular form this statement refers to. Previous versions of this sentence simply states "The argumentum ad hominem is a...".  The sentence could also use a citation. Shawnc 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: As it is, the article here is a heaven for hack logicians, the sort who don't understand what role emotion plays in arguments between human beings.  We need to stress that ad hominem attacks aren't the Devil, but a pitfall in rational arguments.  By rational arguments, I mean significant and sensible rational arguments, not schoolyard debates like the sort I'm used to leading, where the parties opposite me neither have any empathy for anything but themselves nor wish to produce any.  (That has happened...)  --VKokielov 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs revision 

message: The two sentances attributed to the American Heritage Dictionary provided clarity.  It was deleted with a comment "appeal to authority," which is sort of funny that someone would so mischaracterize a logical argument in an article largly about logic.  However, apart from the silly comment, some editors may feel uncomfortable with the heavy referencing from another source.  I haven't reverted it to allow others to weigh in and make their choice.  The sentances were: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language reported that 65 percent of its usage panel found the following sentence to be acceptable: "It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way." They further report that the phrase ad hominem has also "acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks," and is "gaining ground in journalistic style" as in the following quote from The Washington Post: "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together." 71.129.147.6 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you just passed "silly."  Your argumentum verbosium aside, Argumentum ad populum is only a fallacious argument when the question is NOT one of widespread acceptance.  Language, however, is all about numerosity.  If you want to try to convince linguists that they should no longer use linguistic descriptivism for usage debates, be my guest.  I, however, am done with this distraction from the actual point of this sub-section. 71.129.147.6 00:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: "Ad hominem" in New Latin means "to the person," not "at the person."  There should be no argument there.
The meaning of "ad hominem argument" that is discussed here is a new one.  I think it probably came about on the internet. The article here should include the original (and arguably "correct") definition.  I added such text, including two authoritative sources.  Someone removed it entirely, citing poor grammar, and saying also that it added nothing new.  If the grammar was bad, it would have been helpful to correct it.  The claim that it added nothing new is plain wrong.  Nothing in the current text indicates that there is an older definition that is still used by educated people.  The current text also mistranslates the Latin for "to the person" as "at the person," which is an easily corrected mistake.
I cut it down to its essentials, and I have attempted to use good grammar.
: If you are unfamiliar with using the wiki software, feel free to propose the changes on the talk page here, and more experienced editors can migrate your suggestions over. It's just that if your edit makes the article look rather untidy, esp the beginning, it's likely to be reverted. enochlau (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simply wrong 

message: Quote from a recent addition to the article:
:Ad hominem fallacies should not be mistaken confused with attacks on credibility of persons asserting a fact that he/she claims to have witnessed.
This is obviously correct. I just wonder, is it still an ad hominem argument, but not an ad hominem fallacy? If so, the article lead stating that ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies should be moderated.--Niels Ø 08:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lines of reasoning are both incorrect. The example is not related to the ad hominem fallacy of logic in any way as ad hominem applies to incidents where the person's credibility is not a valid logical premise. As a matter of fact most scholars in almost all schools of logic would never use a person's character as a logical premise in an argument as it is subjective and an unprovable factor. Quadzilla99 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid ad hominem arguments? 

message: *Strong Merge. Personal attack can very well go into Ad hominem. Though not all personal attcks are ad hominem, neither is ad hominem necessarily a personal attack, it can just be mentioned as such in the merged article. There isn't enough argument to go separately into each of the articles, and the information provided would be more easily comprhended if they are merged. - Aditya Kabir 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not quite. In a debate context, all personal attacks are ad hominems, but not all ad hominems are personal attacks. :) The main difference is that an ad hominem needn't be an "attack"; any objection or criticism directed at the person, rather than at the argument the person is making, is an ad hominem. -Silence 13:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **Hmm... Either way, no matter the context, there is a difference.  –Gunslinger47 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I removed the bubble diagrams as they explained the fallacy incorrectly. The personal part of the argument does not invalidate every part what the asserter claims just the specific claim. They should be written as:
* Person A makes claim X
* There is something objectionable about person A 
* Therefore claim X is false
With the first two obviously being the premisses and the third being the illogical conclusion. If a person were to state that alcoholism is a disease and another person were to claim that he was using that as an excuse as he is a chronic alcoholic that would be a perfect example of an ad hominem argument. The person would be saying his particular statements about alcoholism were false not his statements about every subject. Quadzilla99 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong, the argument map example follows the correct pattern. I will re-insert it. I think you were confused by the second part of the example which explains why the fallacy is fallacious in terms of an unstated co-premise that "everything person X says (or does or condones or whatever) is wrong or false because they are bad, an idiot, evil etc. The fact that this unstated co-premise is false is what makes ad hominem a fallacy. Grumpyyoungman01 09:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bubble diagrams

message: Nazis and eugenics? Why use such a touchy subject? Bringing up Naziism randomly could certainly make people unnecessarily uncomfortable. Also, it seems to have disguised POV... especially when there's a big check mark over "The Nazis were bad people." That's clearly an opinion, and I'm sure there are a few people would object to that (not only neo-nazis, but also people who are descended from that generation of Germans.)
I'm sure someone could think of a less touchy and less POV example! Jolb 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of the majority though is that they were bad. mike4ty4 07:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi example? 

message: Per current version of the article, there are 3 types of fallacious Ad Hominem: Tu quoque, Circumstantial and Guilt by association. Tindale p.92 also lists "abusive ad hominem", we may need to add it as well. Cinadon36 22:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did mean "argument from commitment."Teishin (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacious types 

message: I feel that the current structure of the article does not properly reflect the literature. The current structure suggests that there are fallacious and non-fallacious types of ad hominem argument. But it is my understanding, that there is a number of types of ad hominem argument, every each of them has a fallacious and a nonfallacious use. For example subsection "Attack on authority", it is more reasonable to be discussed under the the section "circumstantial ad hominem". As with Cicr. ad hominem which has fallacious and nonfallacious usage, attack on authority can also be a valid or invalid argument. This reasoning applies to "Argument from commitment", in a lesser extent though. I have never encountered a textbook that is listing ad hominem arguments that has a seperate chapter or section on this specific argument. May I propose, that we merge 3rd and 4th section (keeping the title of the first, and separate it into 5 subsection (keeping Argument from commitment and moving attack on authority in circumstantial type of ad hominem)? Your feedback please!Cinadon36 08:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , dont get me wrong, I have never implied that argument from commitment does not exist! I also agree (and highlighten) on the necessity to make the distinction among the common and philosophical usage crystal clear! My point on argument on commintment - and I wont insist on it ofcourse- is that, it might be a  sub-subtype of the aformentioned 4 types of subtypes of ad hominem. More studying is needed on my behalf to say something more definite. Cheers. Cinadon36 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of the article

message: I feel we are duplicating information here. Walton and Taylor are not criticizing the Ad hominem argument or fallacy, they are explaining that ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. This has to be address elsewhere in the article. Cinadon36 11:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Section "Criticism as a fallacy"

message: I have noticed that User:Cinadon36 has undone my edits. As such, I will explain in greater detail why I made them.
*Correcting the misspelling "arguement" to "argument". This should not be controversial. Not really sure how else to explain it.
*Definition of tu quoque: Tu quoque does not require a previous ad hominem to be used. The first sentence of the section explains quite clearly what tu quoque consists of: "A's actions don't match A's words" (the implication is that A is a liar and A's arguments should be discarded because A himself doesn't believe them; this is formally a fallacy because an argument A doesn't believe could still be valid). The sentence about governments is not grammatically correct and was in any case rather long-winded, so I tried to replace it with something shorter and more clear. The "takes two to tango" sentence is not written in an encyclopaedic style; the simple fact that a publication says something (if, indeed it does; see below) doesn't mean Wikipedia should quote it word-for-word. 
*Circumstantial ad hominem: the sentence "But it also may be a sound argument..." is vague and weasel-worded. The test for validity of any ad hominem attack is known and simple - what are you attacking? If you're making an argument of the form "A's argument a is false because A is bad", that's a fallacy. If you're making an argument of the form "A's testimony a is untrustworthy because A has reason to lie about it", that's not a fallacy (though it's not necessarily true, and technically testimony is a fallacy to begin with). There is no need to pussyfoot around a known bright-line.
*Claimed example of circumstantial ad hominem: circumstantial ad hominem, according to the article text, is the argument that A's argument or testimony a is false because A is predisposed to make argument a. However, in the claimed example, the father is not predisposed to make that argument; being a smoker doesn't make you more likely to claim smoking is bad (it might, in fact, make you less likely to do so). Rather, the daughter is noting the fact that the father has acted in a contradictory way to his advice to her; this is tu quoque, not circumstantial.
Now, the defence of this material is that it's sourced. However, much of this material is grammatically faulty, poorly worded, or facially contradictory to the main text of the article and common knowledge about the definitions of these terms. This leaves a couple of possibilities:
*The source is wrong or low-quality, in which case it really shouldn't be cited in Wikipedia as fact, or
*Whoever cited the source has either misunderstood and mistranscribed it, or is fraudulently citing it to defend material not actually from the sources.
If I were able to access the sources, I'd be able to check which of these is the case. But the two sources for these particular parts are not available to me, so I can't. What I do know is that what's in there isn't accurate and Wikipedia shouldn't present inaccuracies as truth (though sufficiently-notable inaccuracies can be noted as inaccuracies; indeed, this whole page is an example of such).
(As an aside, while I didn't remove it, the "not on Walton's watch" thing is also unencyclopaedic and should go.)
Magic9mushroom (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about circumstantial ad hominem. I'd like to see this article go back to a clearer discussion that "ad hominem" is applied to a variety of different arguments, not all of which are fallacious, albeit not necessarily valid.Teishin (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute discussion 

message: I feel it would be better if we discuss the various issues raised above in separate sections. So, lets start with tu quoque. Here 's what Wrisley p88 says: 
An ad hominem: tu quoque argument is often seen in political debate. When one party impugns the character of another, it is often countered with a response, “you, too!” Presumably the goal of such a response is to distract from or deflate the power of the first party’s allegations. However, the tu quoque ad hominem argument is not merely the claim that the other party is just as guilty as oneself. As Douglas Walton (1998) emphasizes: “The main problem with the textbook treatment of the tu quoque ad hominem fallacy is that according to the way it is most often defined, it becomes essentially the same type of argument as that in the two wrongs make a right fallacy
So, as I get it, Walton and Wrisley share the same opinion and the phrase  does not stand correct.  
Note that drawing attention to proponent's history, is not per se a tu quoque argument. Wrisley p78 writes
The basic form of the fallacy[ad hominem circumstantial] looks like this:
Proponent: Gives argument/position x.
Respondent: Questions or attempts to refute argument/position x, not by attacking x, but by drawing attention to circumstance y, where y demonstrates one of the proponent’s commitments which is in some way inconsistent with argument/position x.
Respondent: Claims the proponent’s credibility in regard to argument/position x is called into question.
Respondent: Concludes that the proponent’s argument/position x is less credible/refuted.
Note that Wrisley goes on and gives the example of the father who advises his daughter not to smoke, and she answer backs "but dad, you smoke"
I am awaiting your comments and feedback. Anyone who would like to have a look at Wrisley book, pls let me know. Cinadon36 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll hold off on a full response until I take a look at the sources, but for the moment I'll note that personal attacks aren't a subset of ad hominem. The example you put in the article about governments and oppositions actually demonstrates this; the government is committing tu quoque, but the opposition did not make an ad hominem - they're attacking the government's character because they want people to dislike the government, not to discredit the government's arguments. Magic9mushroom (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I 've send you the files. My suggestion is we should made it clear to the readers that there are two slightly different approaches to tu quoque. Anyway, have a look and we talk later. Cinadon36 17:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tu quoque

message: Copying the following from my talk page, as the discussion should go here.
--
Hi. I don’t see a reference to the translation of “ad” as “to” in the section on arguments from commitment, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If there’s a need to provide a further English definition for ad, it should be somewhere that’s not where the phrase “ad hominem” is described. I’m going to revert your reversion, unless I’ve missed or misunderstood something. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the placement of this thread. I get comments on my talk page about edits I've made, so I figured it was ok. Feel free to move. Just one closing comment: the section in question (correctly) uses the definition of "against" for ad, so I think other definitions aren't needed there. For ex, ad also means "nearby", but that's not relevant here either. So, sourced or not, the information I deleted doesn't belong here. I still don't get the relevance of the "from commitment" argument either. The article doesn't cite the definition there. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of "ad" 

message: Hi,
I somewhat confused as to why my additions to this page were removed, for not being supported by a ‘RS’ - which I assume is a ‘reliable source’.
If I am not mistaken as to the meaning of ‘RS’, my contribution named ‘Improper usage’ was derived from a University of Oxford philosophy student’s video on the topic, who I think is more than qualified to comment on what does/does not constitute an Ad Hominem.
Furthermore, my contribution named ‘Poisoning the Well’ was removed, despite me citing ‘Logically Fallacious’ - a web-based version of an academic resource by the same name.
If I have misunderstood the reasons for deletion, please ignore this message. Raidiohead55 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The standards for reliable source here are higher than that. They require being published. By your standard I am qualified to make videos and use them as sources. Moreover, what constitutes an ad hominem is not a basic issue. For example, it has been difficult to get people to wrap their heads around the idea that the term is used for types of valid arguments as they've so heard that ad hominem arguments are invalid. Teishin (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

text: You need consensus before adding a new section, especially to such a highly-viewed quality article. It would be a different story if it was, say, a random stub article on Wikipedia that is rarely edited. Wretchskull (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinadon36 removals 

message: Hi Raidiohead55. Thanks for your message. Yes, RS stands for reliable source. Lets take it one by one. First, the video . Who is talking? What are his credentials? Being a student surely isnt enough. Also, that video is a self published source, which is also problematic. I will adrress the other removal in a separate post. Thanks again for using Talk Page. Cinadon36 19:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: the video removal

message: Logically fallacious website doesnt seem RS either. It looks as a tetriary source. When visiting the site, I noticed that I couldnt locate the name of the author. Then I tried to do a little search about the site, and when clicking on FAQ and another link, a warning message appeared that I was being transferred to an unsafe website. We need to stand on RS, that is peer reviewed articles, books or leading experts. It seems that this site is far from it. Cinadon36 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: the logically fallacious site removal

message: In regards to the video, he is a philosophy student at arguably the best university for philosophy in the world. Given this, I find it slightly bizarre to suggest that he is unqualified to comment on an issue as basic as what constitutes an Ad Homimem - especially when he references a professor in the video. Furthermore, he has debated with respected figures such as, Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig. 
In regards to the logically fallacious removal, you can see the author’s credentials within two clicks from the main page (he holds a PhD). Scrolling down, you will also notice that there has also been an academic release (a book - as you requested) of the contents of the website. 
Raidiohead55 (talk)
: The standards for reliable source here are higher than that. They require being published. By your standard I am qualified to make videos and use them as sources. Moreover, what constitutes an ad hominem is not a basic issue. For example, it has been difficult to get people to wrap their heads around the idea that the term is used for types of valid arguments as they've so heard that ad hominem arguments are invalid. Teishin (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response 

message: Better to put in a citation needed tag, rather than just deleting large sections of the article.  JQ (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Response 

message: Better to put in a citation needed tag, rather than just deleting large sections of the article.  JQ (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You need consensus before adding a new section, especially to such a highly-viewed quality article. It would be a different story if it was, say, a random stub article on Wikipedia that is rarely edited. Wretchskull (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Response 

message: While getting rid of the problematic sources, I've tried to retain the key elements of the recently added content. In particular I think that since the article Poisoning the well exists calling it an ad hominem that needs to be mirrored here. Teishin (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvage 

message: This section unfortunately contains an error.
The "Non-fallacious" example in fact illustrates a fallacious ad hominem. The fallacious at hominem is B's statement "also you are a moron" in reply to A's argument-- just as the "Fallacious" section illustrates. 
B's statement "also you are a moron" does not become a "tacked on" illustration of the "Pure abuse" section's example merely because it occurs subsequent to a genuine refutation of A's argument.  B's subsequent insult is a reply to A's argument just as much as B's prior genuine refutation is a reply. A prior genuine refutation does not close the floor to a subsequent disingenuous refutation.
===Improper usage===
Contrary to popular belief, merely insulting someone is not a fallacious ad hominem. A character attack is only considered a fallacious ad hominem if it is used in exchange for a genuine argument.
Examples:
* Pure abuse: B says of an opponent A, "You are a moron". In this case, there is no argument, only abuse.
* Fallacious: A makes an argument, B responds with "You are a moron and you are also ugly, you cannot possibly be correct". B has not offered a genuine response or argument, only abuse – this is fallacious.
* Non-fallacious: A makes an argument, B responds with "(Genuine refutation of As argument), also you are a moron". While potentially childish, B has genuinely offered a response to As argument and has just bolted on an insult. This is not a fallacy, as an insult or character attack was not exchanged for an argument; rather one was provided alongside of an argument.
Makaveli129 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the "Improper Usage" Section 

message: Contrary to popular belief, merely insulting someone is not a fallacious ad hominem. A character attack is only considered a fallacious ad hominem if it is used in exchange for a genuine argument.
Examples:
* Pure abuse: B says of an opponent A, "You are a moron". In this case, there is no argument, only abuse.
* Fallacious: A makes an argument, B responds with "You are a moron and you are also ugly, you cannot possibly be correct". B has not offered a genuine response or argument, only abuse – this is fallacious.
* Non-fallacious: A makes an argument, B responds with "(Genuine refutation of As argument), also you are a moron". While potentially childish, B has genuinely offered a response to As argument and has just bolted on an insult. This is not a fallacy, as an insult or character attack was not exchanged for an argument; rather one was provided alongside of an argument.
Makaveli129 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper usage