Talk:Poisoning the well

source for origin of phrase
''The origin of the phrase comes from the belief in medieval times that outbreaks of bubonic plague were caused by Jews poisoning the water supply. Suggesting that someone was not to be trusted after accusing them of the unrelated crime of poisoning the water was effective rhetoric, but bad logic.''

Source? (No pun intended.) I thought the origin was metaphorical (the opponent being the well, his/her arguments as the water, and the attack as the poison). --Townmouse 23:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I too call bullshit. This sounds like another one of those retarded origins people make up because the obvious answer isn't as exciting as they'd like. -Branddobbe 03:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I too am doubtful. A google search reveals that this explanation for the origin of the phrase is quite widespread, but evidence is hard to come by.  As for when the phrase "posioning the well" was first used in the sense of a rhetorical device, one web page I found suggests that it was in John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua.  (This page also asserts that the phrase "ultimately alludes" to Jews and the plague, but no evidence is offered, and none is to be found in Newman, who speaks of well-posioning as an unfair tactic used in warfare.) - Coriander 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would have to say I am nearly certain that this supposed origin is total bullshit. This seems rather like the "rule of thumb" coming from some apocryphal rule about beating one's wife. john k 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the hadith or sayings of Muhammad is "Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees and do not poison the wells of your enemies", which would put it long before the Jews-and-plague explanation; but I don't think we're going to find a definitive origin, nor would it be particularly relevant to this article. However, it probably is relevant to mention Newman as the originator of its metaphorical use to describe the logical fallacy, as seems to be accepted (will provide link). Vilcxjo 14:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same as a pre-emptive ad hominem attack?
Is this the same as saying, for example, "Only an idiot would think that marijuana is addictive."? Those who believe that marijuana is addictive are then reluctant to speak up because doing so would get them automatically labelled as an idiot. - You see this sort of attack all the time. It's like a pre-emptive ad hominem attack. 163.192.21.46 21:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Is "Poisoning the Well" being confused with "ad hominem"?
I am just asking because I am not an expert, but it seems to me that these two are being confused (or at least lumped together) in the article. Many of the examples given here are "ad hominem", but is it not possible to poison the well without any (pre-emptive or otherwise) personal attack?

For example, I recall one of my class assignments started with something like "Either proposition A is true or false. If A is true then explain why.... If A is false then explain why...." I went on to argue that proposition A could be neither, and I cited a mathematical theorem (by Godel?) that this is a third possibility. I had some difficulty getting my essay accepted, but I never felt I was being attacked personally. Am I correct in thinking this is an example of poisoning the well that is not ad hominem?68.144.70.5 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we're having a meta-discussion about poisoning the well
What's wrong with parallel examples?


 * The so-called "Theory" of Evolution
 * We now examine the theory of evolution...


 * The so-called "Theory" of Intelligent Design
 * We now examine the theory of intellient design...

If discussion of E can be poisoned, can't the discussion of ID be poisoned in the same manner? patsw 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for parallel examples. I picked the evolution one as its a popular one, but any example would do. If you find it offensive, replace it with any other example. I don't see why having parallel examples explains the concept better, in fact I think it confuses the issue. The text is an example of how an inappropriate heading has already shown the conclusion that will be reached, rather than letting the text of the argument persuade. Codec 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it looks like we're poking fun at the IDers. Oh well; it's better than actually having the theory of evolution up there. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like these because it really depends on the area of explanation after the statements. If one is arguing against the classification of Evolution or Intelligent Design as a theory than this wouldn't be poisoning the well in my eyes. I just don't think it is really the best example that could be chosen.Ozkwa (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia as source
Actually, the example of the Wikipedia as source is an example of the genetic fallacy and not poisoning the well. patsw 04:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed. (Not good form in general for Wikipedia to refer to itself anyway.) Vilĉjo 09:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kawalimus Edit
Why, I did not do it, For I am to lazy and uncreative, But I must say, I laughed out loud at the edit, Mainly because he linked it in support of an Arguement on GameFaqs.D3115 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of “preemptively”
As mentioned before, the use of diaereses for such words is unusual, archaic, and clearly controversial. The word “preëmptively” doesn’t appear in the Merriam-Webster nor any other online dictionary except for wiktionary, and the only reason it appears in the latter is because you added it.   

Wikipedia is not the place for such literary activism. We should use the most commonly accepted spelling, and that is clearly “preemptively”. This isn’t the New Yorker.

I suggest we put this to a vote, which is how such disputes should be resolved. I vote for “preemptively”. Archiesteel 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * “Preëmptively” might not be in any dictionary, but “preëmpt”, “preëmption”, “preëmptioner”, “preëmptive”, and “preëmptory” (as well as “preëmptor”, misspelt as “preëmtor”), can all be found in this online dictionary). Dismissing preëmptively’s presence in Wiktionary on the grounds that I added it is an irrelevant genetic fallacy (and as this is an article concerning logic, we should really steer clear of them). Except for the regularly inflected verbal and adverbial forms, all the words derived from “preëmption” have each been thrice cited, thus satisfying Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion. Noöne is seriously going to be confused by seeing “preëmptively” — yet all of your objections unto the use of the diæretic spelling are based on this reason excuse. Clearly, all the citations and rationale in the world isn’t going to persuade you (instead, you move to justify your stance with the argumentum ad numerum below). I therefore suggest that we compromise, and use neither “preemptively” nor “preëmptively”, instead opting for “pre-emptively”. I will go change it unto the hyphenated form now. If this is acceptable unto you, then the debate is over. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Before batting these hoity-toity logic terms around, recall that it was you who instituted a vote over coöperation on Talk:OSCE. I guess now that you realize nobody will vote for your pet spellings, it’s just an “argumentum ad numerum”. Strad 14:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... touché. I guess that is rather hypocritical of me; thanks for pointing that out. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm personally fine with "pre-emptively". Archiesteel 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey of the spelling “preëmptively”
Add “*Support” or “*Oppose” followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Oppose. These sort of spellings are almost completely extinct today; there's no need to resurrect them and confuse readers. Strad 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons given above. Archiesteel 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose — The letter is not in the English alphabet. This debate is totally unrelated to the subject of the article. This disruption has to stop. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
A similar incident occured here. As you can see there was unanimous opposition to the spelling coöperation, except of course from Doremítzwr himself. I raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and most who responded were against using diaereses in this way, but I guess that it never made it into the Manual of Style itself. Strad 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do my eyes deceive me? Or are you people really arguing over how the word "preemptively" should be spelled? There are some words that have more than one acceptable spelling. Come on. Save it for something that matters. Dino 12:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's okay, this was resolved over a month ago. The point was that the proposed alternate spelling (i.e. with diacritical marks over the second repeated vowel) was controversial. Was it an excercise in futility? Some could argue it was, but arguing this in itself seems rather futile... :-) Archiesteel 16:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Foucault/Derrida example

 * An example of this rhetorical strategy is attributed to Michel Foucault by John Searle, regarding philosopher Jacques Derrida: "Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and then when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot" [roughly, "You misunderstood me; you are an idiot"] (hence "terroriste")."
 * 

It's not clear to me how this is poisoning the well. It's not even clear whether it's saying that Foucault is poisoning the well (as the first part implies: "An example of this rhetorical strategy is attributed to Michel Foucault") or if Foucault is accusing Derrida of it. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Foucault/Derrida/Searle matter is not an example of poisoning the well because we don't have Foucault's comment in context. We don't know whether his remark followed an hour-long technical discussion about the intellectual failings of Derrida from Foucault; we don't know if Foucault's remark followed an hour-long precis by Searle of the intellectual failings of Derrida; we simply don't know anything of its context and since don't have the context we are unable to determine whether it represents an instance of poisoning the well or is merely an incidental comment that followed a substantive dialogue on Derrida.  Hence I am deleting it. AnotherPseudonym (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perfect example
Recently I found an amazing post that in my personal opinion can offer no finer example of Poisoning the Well. The article is here and outlines how one political community failed to look at facts only because certain news sources were involved. The interesting point of this situation is that historically the community would have been a strong supporter of the issue, but in fact assumed the issue was unsupportable simply because the particular news source was supporting that issue. It should be noted however that this example goes far beyond being a mere rhetorical device and extends itself into an example of rhetoric transitioning into an attitude and thereby influencing the real world on a wide scale. Aguy2014 (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Typical example are Holocaust debates. There the well-poisoning is actually done by decades of media-bombardment and "education" relating to the issue. All Holocaust proponents got to do is insinuate or implicate something. A variety is the ad hominem argument that those questioning the proponents must be "Nazis", hence have "sympathies" for the devil. --41.151.208.221 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The link leads to a long comment with unclear sourcing. More to the point, it does not mention "poisoning the well", so any interpretation of the comment as providing an example would be original research. --50.53.48.92 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cardinal Newman's use of the phrase poisoning the well
The article cites Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua as a source for the phrase poisoning the well. Here is an extended quote from Newman's book:

"... my present subject is Mr. Kingsley; what I insist upon here, now that I am bringing this portion of my discussion to a close, is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against me, John Henry Newman, and to infuse into the imaginations of my readers, suspicion and mistrust of everything that I may say in reply to him. This I call poisoning the wells."

"Mr. Kingsley" is Charles Kingsley.

--50.53.48.92 (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)