Talk:Argumentum ad crumenam

I don't pretend to be an expert on logical fallacies, and certainly not on their Latin names. But, even so, the example and the claimed meaning of arg. ad crumenam given here don't match. Some expert in one or the other is needed to untangle this arg. ad mismatch. ww

This is a valid logical fallacy, I'll ref it. Please wait on the CSD. 69.116.150.174 18:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Would this (Argumentum ad crumenam) be the same as "Millions Of People Can't Be Wrong"?
 * No; that would be Argumentum ad populum -DasRakel (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

2007-01-31 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
These are both puny articles about appealing to a person's level of wealth. Let's at least merge them into one. Richard001 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge. It is really unsatifsfying to read such stubs. Leaving redirect in place will make the information just as easy to find, but put it in better context.Yobmod (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Support. There probably isn't much more that can be said for either - in fact, it might be possible to merge them both into Argumentum ad verecundiam, as they're both subsets of that. Tevildo (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose both articles are very short, and both should be, there is little to say. There is no logical way to combine them (what would the title be, afterall? Dondegroovily (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Argumentum ad crumenam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701205104/http://education.gsu.edu:80/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm to http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Solely?
"An argumentum ad crumenam [..] is the formal fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct solely because the speaker is rich"

I don't think so. If I conclude that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich and old, it is still ad crumenam. Even if I conclude that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich and his reasoning is sound, it is still ad crumenam. Are there any sources for the "solely"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No sources forthcoming, so I removed it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)