Template talk:Relevance fallacies
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Tone policing
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Argumentum ad lapidem
editArgumentum ad lapidem appears in the template twice, eh. Varlaam (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Already fixed. BTW, it was easier to fix it than to comment it. Scarbrow (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Tone policing
edit"Tone policing" is a neologististic term with no substantial academic commentary. It's status as a fallacy is tentative at best and it should be removed.Scyph (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- To editor Scyph: Hi and welcome! I noted your removal and would like to hear a little more. The tone policing article does contain two reference citations from two schools, which should satisfy at least the beginnings of academic commentary. Also, while I understand Brink's misgivings, tone policing isn't the only autological fallacy, is it? And while that might be considered a "flaw", it doesn't seem to negate the undesirable situation of trying to avoid a person's point of view by focusing upon the tone of their voice, does it? Paine Ellsworth put'r there 09:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)