Template talk:Relevance fallacies

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Argumentum ad lapidem

Argumentum ad lapidem appears in the template twice, eh. Varlaam (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already fixed. BTW, it was easier to fix it than to comment it. Scarbrow (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone policing

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]