Talk:Loaded question/Archive 1

Archive 1

2004 comments

I don't understand the proposal to merge. Can somebody explain it? --KayEss 19:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu made a mistake. Please see this link for the difference between Plurium interrogationum and Trivial objections. --Viriditas 07:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't put this article on my watchlist. I thought the two were the same. I could have been wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Title of Article

The title was recently changed to Loaded question, but a loaded question is really just the most common kind of complex question; I described that and some of the others in the section I just added to the entry. And logic books really do refer to all of the (illegitimate) examples as "The Fallacy of Complex Question". I will wait for some discussion here before making any big changes like this. DougHill (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. At the minimum, if we're going with Loaded question, then that term should be used throughout the article instead of complex question (particularly in headings). Dcwaterboy (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Implied form

I don't tink this is really the same fallacy, but have given in to pressure to put it here. Suggestions for a better article name would be appreciated. (It was previously in an article named Asking the question.) StuRat 21:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.59.222 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Defense

Some discussion of how to properly respond to a loaded question belongs on this page, so I restored the "Defense" and added a citation. However, the later part of that section (after the citation) may not need to be there and probably could use some editing. DougHill (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Mu, meaning "the premise of your question is flawed?" 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If the person answers no, then, according to logic, they are not admitting they have beaten their wife. If they never did it they can hardly have stopped. I call for a rephrasing of that sentence so that it does not state illogic as fact. (The actual content is fine though. Just rephrase the sentence.)

This has been corrected. Mrtea (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, we're still begging the question: There is an implication that one is married. I suppose I've always had an 'objection' to this [a classic example].

"Have you stopped beating" is by far a more common phrasing than "are you still beating" (+65K non-WP Ghits, vs barely 900). The AYS phrasing, it can be argued, suffers from the same weakness as the HYS phrasing - if I never beat my wife, then I can hardly still be beating her. That's the whole point: this is a fallacy. It doesn't have to obey strict logic. If it did, it wouldn't be a fallacy. DS 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That change violates the official Wikipedia policy of no original research. It also makes the example more confusing, which you tacitly admit by adding an explanation to compensate for the complexity of the example. I'm reverting the change, and removing the uncited assertion that it's the standard example. -- Schapel 16:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to clarify why using Google hits to justify the claim that an example is "the standard example" is considered original research.

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The results of a Google search are not published data. They are the results of an experiment that someone thought of to determine which statement is found more on the Internet. Further, the number of Google hits is interpreted as meaning that the example with more hits is the standard example. Both using unpublished data, and making a new interpretation of data, are specifically listed as doing original research. If you find a reliable source that makes the direct statement "The standard example is..." and cite that source, that's not original research, but citing your sources. -- Schapel 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Google search confirms that the wife-beating example is in fact common, precise phrasing aside. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" was an example used by a philosophy professor I had a few years ago. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could find the original coinage of the phrase; a Google Books search finds it referred to as a "classic example" as early as 1950, in Practical Logic by Monroe C. Beardsley (p. 525). There is an instance of the phrase in The Albany Law Journal in 1899, and an even earlier one in an 1893 book called Cotton Prices. Variations apparently go back many centuries. [1] --Trevor Burnham (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you still beating your wife? I have never been married. Let me rephrase that, are you still beating your girlfriend? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.246.228 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Do you still beat your wife?" be preferable to the current "Are you still beating your wife?" . . . ? The present continuous ("beating") implies that the person might literally be beating his wife at the moment he is being asked this. The present simple ("do you") makes more sense when asking somebody if he is still in the habit of beating his wife. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another issue with the resolution of this example. The article states that the appropriate tactics to challenging the assumption in this loaded question is to respond something to the effect of either "I've never beaten my wife." or "I don't have a wife." The second of these strongly implies however that you don't do it because you've simply never had occassion, but would if you actually had a wife.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do your parents know that you're homosexual?

To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do your parents know that you're homosexual?" would be "I am not a homosexual".

Not sure about this sentence. I think it should be qualified somewhat that responder is indeed not homosexual, and perhaps also that the interrogator is indeed a prankster (although I do see that this is stated above). Otherwise this is a perfectly legitimate question to ask of a homosexual and the context in which is is used here could be construed as slightly derogatory. There is an implication that there is some shame in being homosexual. StraussianNeocon 13:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct, however I thought that would be qualified by referring to the earlier example. Would 'a good response to the prank question' be an acceptable alternative, or would it still be too open for misinterpretation? InvalidAntonym 03:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Both examples (about homosexuals and about wifebeaters) presuppose that the person being asked feels strongly about not confirming that he (she?) is in the designated group. Whether he is in the group or not is actually irrelevant. The word "homophobic" was removed from the homosexuality example recently, but I don't think we should write the article in such a way that it only makes sense if you take homophobia for granted; I think one can claim that is what we do now.--Niels Ø 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairies in woods example - and the lead generally

I've deleted this material from the lead, but I place it here in case someone wants to work with it or restore it, or whatever: "For example, the statement that walking in the woods alone at night is unwise because fairies are likely to bewitch unsuspecting individuals presupposes that fairies exist — a dubious proposition."

I think this is a very confusing example - it is not a question, and it is not even (without a lot more context) an example of circular reasoning or begging the question. There are much better examples both here i the lead and later on in the article. IMHO, the article is clearer and stronger without this particular example in the lead. Metamagician3000 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've now reworked the lead generally. I believe that the explanation is now more accurate and more correctly explains the relationship with the fallacy of begging the question. Metamagician3000 11:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe McCarthy paragraph

I don't understand why this is given as an example of a loaded question. It has been prety much proven that Alger Hiss was at least a communist, and very likely a spy. Where is the loading? Dullfig 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The loading occurs more in the later parts. E.g.:

Frank Coe has been named under oath before Congressional committees seven times as a member of the Communist Party. Why?

Clearly, this question has been phrased to make any direct answer look bad, and herein lies the loading. (How this kind of thing should be countered is left as an exercise. (-: ) Bi 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-fallacies?

What is the non-fallacies section? It is not explained. The section contains the question "have you stopped beating your wife?", yet the intro to the article states that "are you still beating your wife?" is a loaded question - unless I'm wrong to not see the difference between the phrasings, I don't see what the non-fallacy section is trying to prove and I still don't see how "does your mom know that you're gay?" is not just as loaded as any question listed in the fallacy section TheHYPO 10:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can God create a rock so big that he can not lift it?

I think this is a bad example, because the question is not unanswerable nor truly loaded. Presupposing for the sake of answering this question that God is an omnipotent being:

Being omnipotent, there is no limit to the amount of force he has available to lift any rock.

Any rock, in order to exist, must be created of a finite mass.

If God has an infinite amount of force available to apply to any finite amount of mass, then he can lift it.

So then the answer is "no." Any rock of finite mass that God creates could not possibly be beyond his ability to lift if he has an infinite amount of force to exert upon it. Even being omnipotent, God would be limited to create a rock of a finite mass. Ironically the reason why he can't create a rock so big that he can not lift it is because his power is NOT limited, not because it IS. (Conversely the answer would actually be "yes" for any non-omnipotent being!)

I decided to remove this as an example of this fallacy, because it isn't really.75.70.125.3 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether your explaination is correct or not - yours is based on physics... some other religious person might argue that God could change the laws of physics, or that God could create a rock of infinite mass. Who knows. Either way, if you remove the beginning part about "If there is a god" and just have "Could God create...", it would again be a fallacious question - in that answering either 'yes' or 'no' would still admit the existance of God. TheHYPO 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's a loaded question because it implies God exists.--Steven X 10:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry to jump into a 4 year old conversation, but you are both wrong. answering the question does not presuppose that god exists. if someone asks me "could batman beat spiderman in a fight?" and i answer yes or no, this doesn't mean i think they are real people. you can have all sorts of thoughts and opinions on the capabilities of fictional characters. --dan (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

But it has it's place already at omnipotence paradox where it fits much better imho. So#Why 23:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad examples

The first two examples are bad. The first example is a false dilemma, and the second is guilt by association and ad hominem. Also, they are both too long. --Apoc2400 11:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the third example myself - I think the news crawl thing is vague and isn't clear on how those questions fit into this type TheHYPO 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have removed them. Is there any good example except for the wife-beating one? Tocharianne 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard to invent one. Any question that starts with "Do you still...?" or "Have you stopped...?". Questions can generally be categorized as one of these by it's opening. Let's see. If you wanted to make one up, you might start with "Can I borrow your...?" which presumes that the askee has something like that to borrow - and a "No" answer does not necessarily clear that up. How bout "Did you enjoy Survivor last night?" The question implies that the askee WATCHED Survivor last night, whichever answer they give (generalized to any TV show, or even any activity - did you enjoy the opera last night? did you enjoy amusement park yesterday?). Those are just two off the top of my head TheHYPO 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Examples

Albright on 60 Minutes

Madeleine Albright's later regrets regarding her infamous response shows that she regards herself as answering a loaded question. And her response was treated as confirming a number that had previously been very speculative, when actually, the fact that she answered a loaded question should not prove anything (one way or another). And since she famously did answer a loaded question, it belongs on the page and has been restored while we discuss it here. DougHill (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me elaborate: a previous editor wrote: "Historical Example: Removing POV example. It implied that Albright was tricked into agreeing that many children died in Iraq, which in turn implies that they didn't." No, a loaded question is often used as an interogation trick to get someone admit something that is true or believed to be true. But like many interogation tricks it is unreliable. So the fact that Albright answered a loaded question doesn't imply anything. The editor continued "They did." That is beyond the scope of this page.

Also, another historical example would be nice. There are some examples at: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html but these are more examples of bad writing than historically consequestial loaded questions.DougHill (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Even better would be two more examples of loaded questions: one which admits to something that is undisputably true, and another that admits to something undisputably false. This would demonstrate that one should not conclude anything from a loaded question. DougHill (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this section needs clarification. I needed to read it twice to understand what was meant. I understand it, but I think it needs to be more clearly stated that she "admitted" to the fact that half a million children died and what type of loaded question was used. Cpyder 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The type of complex question is a loaded question, and it was loaded with "a half million children have died". And while she did not really admit anything, her answer (or failure to deny, see:The Politics of Dead Children) was siezed on by many as an admission. I think that this section needs the work of another editor. So go ahead and clarify it, and please feel free to cut-and-paste from this page.DougHill (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor recently added:

Her claim that it is a loaded question is false, since Stahl's "is the price worth it?" is an abbreviated or blunt way of asking: "are the deaths of half a million children worth the gains are assumed to come from them?" I.e. stopping Saddam Hussein, securing resources, strategic security etc. Albright claimed it was a loaded question only because her initial response "the price is worth it," was also direct and blunt, and made her look uncaring. The "trap" she means is that she answered a blunt question directly instead of using Obfuscation.

This misunderstands what a loaded question is. The issue is not whether the questions or answers were worded bluntly. This issue is whether the question made a presumption that the one being questioned should have challenged. Albright clearly believes that she should have.DougHill (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand

This example was recently deleted:

The New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009 asked what was widely considered to be a loaded question:

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos New Zealand, noted that the question "presupposes that smacking is part of good parental correction" which he described as "a debatable issue".

This seems like a good example to me, but it does need citations before it can go back in the article.DougHill (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The assumption in the last line is wrong. The question does not presuppose that smacking is a good part of parental correction. Only a fool would make that assumption. It clearly questions whether a smack should be illegal when used justifiably (good) as a part of parental correction. Its no loaded. 19 May 2010 (UTC)

you assume (as does the question) that smacking is ever justifiable. it is loaded. --dan (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

removed unsourced bit

i just removed the following:

More precisely, the question is ambiguous and is loaded under some possible interpretations:

1. The question "Should a smack, being part of good parental correction, ..." is loaded.
2. The question "Should a smack, when part of good parental correction, ..." is not loaded, although it does face further ambiguity problems of its own: If the majority of voters answered in the negative, would the referendum be taken to mean

• that the smack's not being "part..." is an element that the prosecution must prove

or

• that the smack's being "part..." is an affirmative defense, such that a parent charged with, e.g., domestic assault arising from such an incident would be charged with putting on at least some evidence to support it?

it's been listed as 'citation needed' for most of a year now, and on top of that is simply incorrect - both the possible interpretations given are loaded. the 2nd one assumes that a smack can be part of good parental correction. to make that clearer, imagine if it said "Should beating a child to death, when part of good parental correction, ..." --dan (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Other examples

I suppose another historical example would be the question asked by Aimee Teegarden of Miss Teen USA contestant Caitlin Upton (famous for her incoherent response): "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?" The question of course assumes that the "recent polls" statement in the first sentence is true. Captain Quirk (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Another historical example: The United States government asked interned 2nd generation Japanese-Americans, in a yes-or-no questionnaire, if they gave up their allegiance to the Emperor of Japan during WWII prior to enlisting for military service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.214.91 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mu and the Discordians

Does this very short, unexplained line at the bottom of the page have any place here? It makes you go to the articles for both Mu and Discordians to find out what the point of the sentence is. And then it just winds up telling you what has already been stated in the article, that an appropriate response is to indicate that the question is loaded. This just seems like viral advertisement for a religion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mu (negative). It predates Discordianism be a bit. Taemyr (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox news, CNN, MSNBC, Mainstream Media

I wonder if we can start another heading analyzing the overwhelming use of the "loaded question" in today's media? Karnarazdan (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I second this idea. Where it not such a serious problem the degree to which cable news fails to adhere to any idea of journalistic integrity could be considered comical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.96.125 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Loaded question, complex question, presupposition, trick question, plurium interrogationum

It seems to me these are five different concepts, not synonyms for one another, as the lead seems to suggest.

As has been noted above, this article looks like it is mainly about the fallacy of the complex question, rather than about loaded questions.

A good way to conceptualise loaded questions, IMO, is to think of them as being loaded in the same way that dice can be loaded - ie the question is biased so as to increase the chances of eliciting a particular response (or consequent implication).

So, the Albright example does give an instance of a complex question (and also of a trick question), but it is not a good example of a loaded question, because it is not clear that the interviewer is trying to push or trick Albright into answering either negatively or affirmatively.

Could the article please be retitled, and also impoved so that it is more clearly about one thing?

Thanks. --92.25.193.255 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the Fallacy of Many Questions should be forwarded to "Loaded Question" - they are significantly dis-similar.

"Do I look fat?"

I felt this common question may deserve some examination in the context of this article or possibly another as an example to be used. I'm not an expert on this kind of thing so please bear with me.

A brief explanation: A person asks his or her significant other if they look fat (in pop culture, it is frequently assumed the questioner is female and the listener is male). This question is thought to have a hidden meaning behind it, in that the questioner regardless of his or her actual size, feels emotionally insecure about his or her appearance. This hidden meaning frequently gets this question the label of "loaded question," although this article does not make it clear that it does. For one, it technically does not contain an overt presumption. So now I am confused where it may belong.

While the question remains the same, the hidden dynamics can take different forms. In the classic version, the listener is expected by the questioner to answer "No" regardless of that person's true objective appraisal, in the interest of eliciting a positive emotional response. Answering "Yes" gets an immediate negative emotional response.

In an arguably more unhealthy questioner, the question can become a no-win situation: the answer of "No" may not get the listener off the hook. The questioner may demand narrative justification for this answer. They may accuse the listener of lying in order to placate the questioner. Yet at the same time, "yes" would like wise evoke a negative reaction. Frequently the listener ascribes this hidden dynamic from past experiences, including with the same questioner.Legitimus (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Compound question

I propose to merge Compound question here, is it is just one iteration of the loaded question. bd2412 T 20:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Object, but I'd support creating an article on complex questions from part of the content split from this article (see my comment below). Compound question is not the same thing as loaded question, but they are both types of complex questions. In fact, compund question is a legal term for a what is know in research methods as a double-barreled question (I will shortly create an article on that subject). Whether a compound question should be merged to the article I will create or not, that is a separate issue (if a legal expert could tell us if the concept should be separate or not it would be helpful, similar to my point below on whether suggestive question (in research) and leading questions (in legal setting) are the same or not). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Split loaded question and suggestive question

The current article discusses the term suggestive question (I created a redirect). I think they are different enough to deserve different articles (see also my related comment at Talk:Leading_question#Outside_courtroom). PS. Actually, almost all the content of the section on "Types of complex questions" doesn't belong here - loaded question is one of complex questions, not the other way around. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I would agree with such a split. This article already seems to mash together several subjects that I feel need some differentiation. Suggestive questioning in particular has explorable implications in psychology and forensics.Legitimus (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the legal term for "suggestive question" is leading question, and there is already an article for that. I'll change the redirect for now. It looks like some of the material about Elizabeth Loftus' research is already on that page. DougHill (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And your "P.S." is right; we should probably re-rename the article, as per the discussion in the first section above. DougHill (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's my first version of how we should split this article:

• earlier, I proposed that we should create a parent article, complex question, based roughly on the "Types of complex questions" section from current article. However, a review of sources (here) shows that there is no reference that clearly lists and defines all complex questions in a manner similar to this section. This suggests that this section is somebody's original research and wrong (in other words, if there is a term that groups all such questions, it is not a complex question). Some sources do distinguish between complex and loaded question, along the lines that complex question combines several presuppositions, and a loaded questions contains controversial presuppositions. Thus I suggest creating an article on a complex question based only on the "Legitimately complex questions" and "Illegitimately complex question" parts of the current "Types..." section (plus a short summary of what a leading question is). Sample refs supporting such a distinction: p.199, p.197-198, p.194-195, p.36, [p.329. It should be noted, however, that some sources do not make this distinction and call all loaded question complex and vice versa (ex. p.307-308). Also, it seems that the term multiple question is an accepted alt term (necessitating a redirect and mentioning in the lead).
• Loaded question - based on the current article's lead, and sections "Implied form", "Defence" and "Historical examples" and perhaps the Loaded questions subsection of the "Types of complex questions" if it contains anything that is not already covered elsewhere
• Suggestive question - should be create a new article on this or just merge it to leading question (where it currently redirects?) See my comment at Talk:Leading_question#Outside_courtroom. Also, I wonder if Buttering-up is not simply another type of a leading question.
• Implied dilemma - may be notable, refs: [2]

Also, please note that I've created the Double-barreled question article. Currently, this type of a question is not listed in our list of complex questions - is it an oversight? (also, just like with suggestive and leading question, there is the issue of whether compound and double-barreled question articles should be merged or is the legal use distinct enough to deserve its own, separate article). Uff, I think that covers where we stand now. If there are no objections, I'll carry the split to create the complex question article soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I admittedly have little expertise in logic and rhetoric. But your suggestion sounds reasonable to me based on the sources. One thing I might be able to help with is "leading" vs. "suggestive." They seem notably different to me. My understanding is leading questions are somewhat distinct to legal contexts, in that the question itself contains an assertion, that while not purported as true or false in-context strictly speaking, puts that idea out there for both the witness and observers to hear before the witness can even speak. The witness is denied the ability to make the statement in their own words. The intent being to control the questioned person's ability to convey information in the conversation. A suggestive question on other hand appears to mean one that contains an assertion, but in-context implies that assertion is already accepted as true fact by all present and is likely not to be contested by the questioned person either. The faulty assertion is usually not emotive, but rather the intent is to subtly fool the questioned into accepting as fact. Well that's just my layman's take on it.Legitimus (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are onto something. Could you create a referenced entry on a suggestive question then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make any new pages. As Piotrus has found, there is an existing page on Compound question (that has not gotten much attention); I propose that we rename that Complex question, which would include Double-barreled question and which would list and refer to Loaded Question for more detail on that kind of question. Also, my source for the types that I added was Layman, which says complex questions should not be confused with leading questions. DougHill (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Name wise, compound question (683) seems about as popular as the Double-barreled question (643). While compound question has existed on site before I created my article on the d-b question, I wonder - should they be merged? And to which name? I tend to be fine with having many pages, as long as they have clear definitions, and link and discuss similar concepts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have declined the merger for now, but both articles clearly link to the other and mention it is a similar concept in different contexts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have created Complex question and moved content that shouldn't have been here elsewhere. An important point that is now made clear (I hope) is that a complex question may be (but doesn't have to be) fallacious. It becomes fallacious only if a presupposition being made is not agreed by on by all discussants (and it becomes loaded if it is controversial/uses loaded language). Suggestive question part ended for now at Talk:Leading_question#Outside_courtroom. Buttering up was moved to Double-barreled question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)