Talk:Personal attack

message: How is this different from an argument ad hominem?
I think this page could potentially be very good - I can see where the original author was going with it. Needs work, obviously. Some research, links to libel, slander and defamation would also be good. - MMGB
:Ok - I will stay tuned.  :-)
----
I too think that a greater distinction should be made between personal attack and ad hominem. I think personal attack that isn't advanced in lieu of addressing the subject at issue, and isn't used as a rationale to dismiss the persons argument, is acceptable. Sometimes it is even called for. Anyway I just stumbled upon this interesting site. So I will leave it at this until I learn some more about what is happening here. --Del
----
I'm aware of the term ad hominem, but I came to this page looking for a definition to post in a discussion of the rules of a forum.  Since "no personal attacks" is used more commonly than "no ad hominem attacks", and people love to quibble about definitions, I value having this page seperately.  I think Cyberstalking could fall into the category of personal without necessarily being "ad hominem", but I'd like to read and discuss more before making my first edit.  Incidentally, this is my first post on wikipedia; hope I did it more or less right. --Priapos93 05:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Ad hominem''

message: By the definition of "personal attack" given here, using the term "logical fallacy" and categorizing the article as such seems like a highly opinionated presentation. — Feb. 28, '06 [08:42] <freakofnurxture|[ talk]>
I understand that the reason there remains a separate article for personal attack is that it is viewed that all ad hominem arguments are personal attacks but not all personal attacks are ad hominem arguments. Note material lacking a reliable source may be removed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence).Wpraeder (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: logical fallacy

message: Is this article still the subject of an NPOV dispute?  Been a while since it's been talked about.  If not, maybe the NPOV tag should be removed. - Dreadlocke 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no response to my query, or any recent edits about an NPOV dispute, I'm going to remove the tag.  Dreadlocke 16:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: I've seen a number of Wikipedia biography articles which contain personal attacks on their subject. These attacks seem aimed at discrediting the subject, with the intent of dissuading readers from finding out anything of the subject's ideas on science controversies. Saying that William Dembski was accused of violating a copyright, for example. 
Should this comment go on a project page instead of an article talk page? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks in science controversies

message: This was redirected to Ad hominem which is not a personal attack at all. For lack of a better place, I've moved it to Incivility. If there is a better spot, I'm all ears. But "Ad hominem" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect