Talk:Reductio ad Hitlerum/Archive 1

POV wording
"In other words, genocide and white supremacism, as two examples, are not considered evil on their own basis, while Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them."

Does this read as "genocide and white supremacism are not considered evil" to anyone else? I know this is supposed to be neutral POV but GENOCIDE???


 * Tried to deal with the usual POV issues arising from the use of the term "evil". -- Bonalaw 15:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Similar term
don't remember well.. there is another famous latin sentence similar to this like "reductio ad xxx"
 * Are you thinking of reductio ad absurdum? &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 16:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * that's it! thanks :-)

Should a mentioned not be in the article that the phrase comes from the logical fallicy Reductio ad absurdum? &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 12:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should. And now it is. Aerion 21:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Better example
I think smoking is a better issue for the example than tax cuts, since "the President supports tax cuts" is a pretty touchy subject, since the current President does indeed support tax cuts and Hitler wasn't well-known for supporting the same-Nazism is a form of socialism.Lebob 07:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, tax cuts are a situational issue. It's unclear whether, influence by the economic forces of 2001, Hitler would have approved that specific tax cut.  Smoking is timeless; it's reasonably clear that Hitler would have enacted the anti-smoking legislation he enacted not matter what the circumstances. Lebob 00:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of entire article?
Does anybody else think this article is a candidate for deletion? I am tempted to recommend a vote. It is not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia, and I am a very big fan of Leo Strauss. It lacks any real conceptual independence from logical fallacy in general. Moreover, it seems to be a political/editorial support for minimizing Heidegger's Nazism.--Mikerussell 07:12, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
 * Was there a vote I'd say Keep. The fallacy sees enough use in discourse, esp. online (see Godwin's law), to make a Reductio ad Hitlerum a notable specific instance of Reductio ad Absurdum. I'll see if I can add that the comparisons are still happening. -- Kizor 14:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kizor that the term / concept is in common usage, though sometimes mockingly so. Another, more timely, concept might be a reduction to terrorists, as per the phrase "if you ***, then the terrorists have already won."
 * --zandperl 03:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, deletion is a tough call, but the substance of the article is dubious. The phrase is not in "common usage" (there are billions of phrases that are far more common), the article's neutrality is non-existent, and its logic is questionable. On the last point, it is true but trivial to argue "just because Hitler supported it doesn't make it wrong". Nazi associations should be examined on their merits - not automatically dismissed as logical fallacies.--Jack Upland 23:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You apparently have absolutely no idea what the phrase "logical fallacy" means. It is an undisputable fact that, logically, "X is a bad idea" can never follow from "Y supported X", unless it it is held to be true that "every idea Y ever had was bad" and "the situation now is the same as when Y had the idea". Reductio ad Hiterlum is a logical fallacy. Keep. mstroeck 18:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd vote keep. Furthermore, I see no grounds for deletion. A Google search returned over 13,000 pages with the term so it's far more common than many other items that merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It's also included in some online logic lexicons.  More than that, the basic concept of the article - appealing to someone's sense of moral outrage by vacuously associating an idea with Hitler or Nazis - is so prevelent in politcal discourse nowadays even though most do not use nor have even heard the term "Reductio ad Hitlerum".  As far as conceptual distictiveness, what's true about Reductio ad Hitlerum is also true of ever other argumentum ad and reductio ad fallacy.  They're all just more specific extentions of their respective prototypes. I completely disagree with Jack.  The logic behind it - the fact that Hitler or the Nazis advanced a particular idea has no effect on the truth of that idea - is irrefutable. JE1977 17:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd vote to delete. The entire article as written is a double fallacy. It is first the fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum because if all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious then even the comparison of Neo-Nazis to Hitler would be false-which is absurd. It is also a straw man argument. People who make Nazi comparisons are not saying that an idea or practice is bad because Hitler did it but that Hitler took the idea further towards it's logical conclusion and as it progressed further towards that logical conclusion it produced bad results.They are using Hitler as an EXAMPLE of why an idea is bad. Nazi comparisons may be valid-depending on whether there really is an ideological or historical connection to Hitler and whether Hitler produced bad results by pressing the idea towards it's logical conclusion
 * This article violates NPOV. Reductio ad Hitlerum is not universally recognized and no room is made for other points of view. In my own opinion reductio ad hitlerum is often used as propaganda and as a polemic against those who would warn us of genuine threat to liberty by taking away the ability to make meaningful comparisons to past tyrannies. This article is unbecoming of Wikipedia--DCnet 00:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Reductio ad absurdum" has been mentioned twice in this "thread", both times as a logicall fallacy. How sad is that in a logic-related talk page people do not know that reductio ad absurdum is NOT a logical fallacy? Moreover, to answer DCnet: you are first using a falacy of the excluded middle: no-one said that "all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious". Some are, some aren't. No dichotomy here. Second, your claim to straw man argument is incorrect. If I were to say: "Killing millions is bad, because Hitler did it", that would be a logical fallacy (a reductio ad Hitlerum, precisely). Someone pointing my fault would not be strawmanning me, nor defending killing innocents, nor defending Hitler's acts. Fact is killing people is bad for many other reasons, but not directly because Hitler did it. That is (as all logical fallacies, in the end) a non sequitur. Does everyone realize that the truth value of a statement has NOTHING to do with its logic? "Killing millions is bad" is true, and so is "Hitler did it". However, "Killing millions is bad because Hitler did it" is faulty logic, and an actual reductio ad absurdum can prove it: Hitler didn't kill billions, therefore we could conclude that "Not killing billions is bad, because Hitler did not do it". Isilanes 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Isilanes, I must disagree with your statement 'no-one said that "all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious" '. I understand the article to be saying precisely that and is in fact understood in exactly this fashion by a lot of other people, including those who believe that any Nazi comparison automatically forfeit the debate. If that was not the intended message then editing is needed to clarify this point. Many logical fallacies do have caveats.For example there are valid appeals to authority and cases where absence of evidence may be reasonably presumed as evidence of absence. The article could be saved by making the appropriate caveats but as it stands it is a candidate for deletion.


 * This quote by Strauss in the article 'A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.' does not accurately represent the views of those who make Nazi comparisons, and because it does not it is a straw man. The only possible rebuttal of this charge are to show that the article (and the views of Strauss) does accurate represent the views of those making Nazi comparisons or that I have misunderstood the intent of the article.I do not beleive IMHO that either one can be established.DCnet 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is NOT saying that all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious. The article is saying that comparison to Nazis (devoid of further arguments) is not a valid point to critizice anything. "I'm wearing trousers, therefore tomorrow it will rain" is fallacious (a non sequitur), however true me wearing trousers or tomorrow raining be. And "X is bad because Hitler did it" is equally faulty logic. Always. Not because all comparisons to Nazis are fallacious, but rather because it is a non sequitur, as "valid" a non sequitur as any other. Actually, it is a straw man argument towards "X", it just happens that such a way of strawmanning ideas is much more common than comparing them to blue elephants, and therefore "reductio ad blue elephant" does not deserve an encyclopedic article, but reductio ad Hitlerum does.


 * You say that the Strauss quote "does not accurately represent the views of those who make Nazi comparisons" (and is therefore a straw man). I must disagree. You are absolutely right if you mean that sometimes valid Nazi comparisons are made. However, it is silly to deny that a whole lot of people think than equating something to a Nazi custom is the last word in a discussion, as if it proved something, which it doesn't. Therefore, it is undeniable that the Strauss quote could and should be applied to them, and the article is valid.


 * Moreover, I must remind you that your criticism of using the name "Hitler" in logical fallacies was shared by the Nazis... ;^) Isilanes 09:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, when I found this article I spent about a minute scanning it then flipped to this page. From what little I read, I fairly clearly got the message that "'reductio ad hitlerum' is a rather common kind of strawman argument", not "all comparisons to nazism are fallacious" -and as I said that took me a minute, so it's message is not exactly veiled. I don't think there is anything wrong with this article. It's a concept I've come across plenty of times without being able to name, and the article itself is neither invented nor factually inaccurate, so no cause for deletion. -Zepheriah 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree. I got the impression that the term coins something that has frustrated me for a long time, and that this page does a good job of laying out my gripes with it. Nowhere is it implied that there are no valid comparisons. Two similar and common fallacies, that have not yet been coined AFAIK, is the reduction to child abuse (typically as an ad hominem or non sequitur) and the reduction to terrorism or fundamentalism (more common in the US than around here, it seems). There are some knee-jerk topics that like some magic invocation will put a stop to anything (or start just about anything) by the mere implication or threat of association if an argument is opposed. It's plain silly. Zuiram 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep' With one caveat. As was mentioned above, reductio ad absurdum is not in itself a fallacy, this should be cleared up in this article. (I'm horrid at anything having to do with logic otherwise I would do it myself.) Because this article presents reductio ad absurdum as a fallacy it contains incorrect data, which should probably be cleared up. I only know this because I came to this page from the reductio ad absurdum page, lol.

Gandhi
New here so pardon me if this is out of turn but isn't claiming Ghandi was 'as benign as Hitler was evil' strongly POV rather than NPOV? By that I mean, although Hitler's extreme evil is so beyond dispute that calling him evil is barely POV, to claim Ghandi's benignness is as great as Hitler's evil seems not very neutral for an encyclopedia even though Ghandi was very benign. This issue doesn't affect the overall quality of the article because the author was only illustrating an example, I'm just raising the POV issue as part of finding my wiki-feet. GhostGirl 17:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if nothing else, it's a little awkward. I changed it to "non-violence proponent," because I think the idea is to show contrasts with Hitler.  My phrasing is still pretty awkward, using non-violence as an adjective, but less POV at least, focusing on what he did, rather than how good he is. NickelShoe 17:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that ghandi was rather racist, at least in his earlier years... But that's neither here not there, because the points you make are more fundamental... &mdash;Memotype:: T 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way; Penn and Teller did a show about the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and Mahatma Ghandi.
 * Ghandi was accused of being racist and a pedophile. For the claim of him being racist they actually have great sources: Ghandi himself... Ghandi was not as good as Hitler was bad.
 * 85.223.108.141 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How can every one be so smart about Gandhi when they cannot even spell his name correctly? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How come people try to make a smart comment by using an ad hominem and forget to respond to whatever was said? 85.223.108.141 07:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger from Godwin's Law
Pretty much, Godwin's Law is a law that deals directly with Reductio ad Hitlerum. The analyses in the articles complement each other nicely. They should be together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs)


 * Disagree. The two are only superficially related and each has more than enough merit to stand on its own as an article. This is akin to suggesting that all Chevrolet car articles be merged into one because they are all from the same manufacturer. &rArr; BRossow T/C 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are argumenting like HITLER! He, too, always wanted to artificially seperate was ought to be one...
 * I see the point behind merging them, but I also see Brossow's concern about it muddying the articles up--making the differences less clear. If the articles were particularly short, that would be somewhat different, but a clean merge looks difficult without simply keeping them as separate sections. Perhaps something more prominent connecting the two than "see also" would be in order, though. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. In addition to BRossow's comments, a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis is not automatically a fallacy, and it's not just the fallacies that Godwin's Law addresses. --Grouse 08:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but the analysis that Godwin's Law gives is useful for all Hitler and Nazi comparisons, not just those on online communities. Reductio ad Hitlerum would benefit from the analysis in the Godwin's Law article.  It's not an issue of article size; both articles have enough information for a page of their own.  It is instead an issue of "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap." [1]  As for the fact that Hitler/Nazi comparisons aren't always fallacious, I think that that's an important distinction that Godwin's Law has and Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't, and both topics would benefit from it. Jesuschex 13:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But, it's not like you couldn't add information from either page without doing a full merge. I'm just concerned about merging them when they're pretty distinct ideas.  That is, when a reader clicks "Godwin's Law", I think it's unfair for them to end up at "Reductio ad Hitlerum" or vice versa, if neither is truly a subtopic of the other. That seems like it would be confusing and even misleading in itself. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. They are in fact addressing different topics: This adresses the likeliness of someone to relate something to Hitler, the Nazi party, etc. making it evil (with a flawed argument), while the Godwin's law article addresses the likeliness of a Usenet user to compare a user or other object to that of the Nazis, e.g. "Grammar Nazi", as an insult or general moniker, to show that they do this frequently or aggressively. --SheeEttin 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Hitler would have agreed . toresbe 12:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hilarious comment!


 * This disagree comment was posted at Godwin's Law and I am copying it here as it forms part of this discussion:
 * It seems worth pointing out that deletion or merger would break certain prior media references to Wikipedia's entry on "Godwin's Law". Moreover, there are probably more references to Godwin's Law on Usenet on the Web than there are to "Reductio Ad Hitlerum," which in any case does not have the same meaning. It seems wrong to have Straussians attempt to hijack this page or delete it. Furthermore, googling "Godwin's Law" and "reductio ad hitlerum" indicates that references to the former exceed those to the latter by at least an order of magnitude. So:
 * (1) the two locutions don't mean the same thing.
 * (2) Godwin's law has an order of magnitude (at least) more references
 * (3) fans of Leo Strauss ought not to be able to hijack this page
 * (4) there have been external media references to this Wikipedia entry.
 * —This unsigned comment was added by 68.49.2.164 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 5 April 2006 UTC.


 * Do not merge as per 68.49.2.164. -- cmh 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Quite different things. romanista 17:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears there is a clear consensus to keep separate pages. I am therefore removing the proposed mergebox. --Grouse 17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided to put a reference to Godwin's Law into the lead paragraph, and in turn put a reference to this article in the GL one. I think the two topics are sufficiently intertwined to warrant that. mstroeck 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Random observations
"ad nazium" sounds like "ad nauseam".
 * I Agree. The term may have arisen from a finessing of "Reductio ad Hitlerum" and finding a more appropriate logical fallacy term, not to mention having fewer syllables and a wider applicability. ad nazium would, in fact, make a nice subset of the ad nauseam arguments, being Dog Latin itself. 64.90.198.6 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum may be used as a meta-argument: "You know who else appealed to emotions (which is what this Reductio usually intends) for support? Hitler!"

Moustaches
Can it be conclusively proved that men with moustaches aren't evil? Seems like a rather POV statement to me. CameoAppearance 06:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe law of excluded middle is important here.
 * Screw you, I was going to point that out. :P Vitriol 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am an evil rouge admin and I have a moustache. Does that count? Just zis Guy you know? 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Men with mustaches are clearly evil. Don't you people watch the movies? --Jfruh (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is very POV and should be removed because men with mustaches are obviously a menace to our existence. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Couln't agree more. Men with moustaches are a menace to the society as we know it. Oh, and add to them men without moustaches and women (with and without moustaches). Isilanes 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I think there's a consensus here that such a dangerous lie should be erased from the Wikipedia. Or better, shaved from the Wikipedia.

Please, take this more seriously! There is empirical evidence enough that wearing a moustache and being evil are positively correlated!193.40.33.50 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about the "reductio ad stalinum"
I have been unable to verify the fact that is asserted in this sentence: "For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that corporal punishment of wayward children is necessary because Josef Stalin enacted its abolition." I have looked high and low for information about Stalin having done this and have not found it in any biography. If anyone has information about this, I would be grateful if it would be posted. G.L. 07:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Inserted --Manscher (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Why 'counterexamples'?
Considering the fact that Reductio ad Hitlerum is fallacious even in the context X = 'holocaust', why is there a mention of those counterexamples at all? They do not in any way enlighten people on the fallacy of the reasoning because the fallacy is logically deeper than the superficial (counter)examples. Just a statement of 'they are not evil because Hitler advocated them, but rather Hitler was evil because he advocated them.' already included should be more than enough.

Showing also the superficial examples will only serve to perpetuate the fallacy because they do not tackle the fact that not only the good sides of Hitler but also the bad sides are not a valid use of argument. So I say either add some references to Hitler's worse actions (invading poland, antisemitism, etc.) in the examples or just remove them as a whole.


 * Good point. I'll see to it. Isilanes 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The point that i am trying to make but for some reason keeps getting removed is this. The counterexamples do not refute anything as the article says. Just because someone was an opponent to Hitler does not make them by implication not evil themselves. As a very good example Stalin is considered by many to be at least as evil as Hitler. Therefore it is irrelevant what commonalities Churchill and Eisenhower have with Hitler.71.61.16.14 08:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. The counterexamples do refute. Your words imply that Churchill or Eisenhower are considered "good" because they oposed Hitler. You are accusing other authors of making an "inverse" ad Hitlerum, which is not the case. These people, and specially Einstein, are considered at least not particularly evil by themselves. Then, the comparison to Hitler is used as a reductio ad absurdum for the ad Hitlerum. Isilanes 09:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think, and many on the (real) left political spectrum will agree, that Churcill and Eisenhower were particulary Evil. So I don't think the may be good examples... it's POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Does not make sense
The line "The argument being fallacious, however, does not prove X, or its supporters, not being evil" does not make sense.


 * Yes, it does. But maybe it could benefit from a couple of examples of what it means. --Sebastián


 * Well, I guess that examples of supporting some Nazi idea and not being evil should be (and have been) given. The opposite... one wouldn't think so. However, in the same paragraph it reads: "Hitler killed human beings, therefore killing is wrong", and it is clearly said that X (killing human beings) might be wrong (we could rephrase it to "evil"), even though the reasoning behind the affirmation is fallacious. I think that this example, and the "affirming the consequent" mention, make it clear... but anything to make it clearer or more complete is welcome! - Isilanes 09:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the "trousers and rain" simile is not apt -- it's more an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. To be a real parallel it should have to do with trousers. The point is that "Hitler did X [and he did things that are wrong], therefore X is wrong," even if X IS wrong, is fallacious. A parallel should therefore be "I do X, [and I am Y], therefore X is Y" (even if X really IS Y), not "I do X, [and I am Y], therefore Z." If I am myself making sense. I just don't have a suitable trouser conclusion handy that is both true concerning trousers and yet fallacious.  EDIT: Possibly "I am wearing jeans [and I always wear blue], therefore jeans are blue." Blue jeans ARE blue, but not because I'm wearing them. ...?


 * I don't get your point exactly. The "trousers and rain" simile is not there to directly illustrate a reductio ad Hitlerum, but rather to clarify what a logical fallacy is, in general. Maybe it's misleading, then? Thanks for pointing out, I'll consider changing it (of course, you can do it yourself). Moreover, your example with blue jeans is not really correct, because if I always wear blue, and I wear jeans, it logically follows that jeans (at least the ones I wear) are blue. From the information we have, yes, they are blue because I wear them. Similarly, if we assumed that all Hitler did was "bad", then from Hitler having done something, it follows that it was bad (and the reductio ad Hitlerum would be a sound reasoning). The problem is with the premise that all that Hitler did was bad, which is obviously incorrect. A maybe better simile would be: "I wear a horrible pair of jeans, and I like Velázquez, therefore Velázquez was a bad painter" (it goes implied that, since I wear ugly trousers, I have bad taste, and since I have bad taste for clothes, I must have bad taste for everything. Moreover, if I have bad taste and like a painter, it must be bad, because I can not even be "right" by chance). However, the more convoluted an example, the less apt to convey the main idea of why a fallacy is a fallacy (be it reductio ad Hitlerum or any other), and that's why I am partial to the "trousers and rain" simile. &mdash; Isilanes 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have inserted text in the introduction to the same effect, and modified the trousers and rain argument to avoid confusion. Could still be improved, though... --Manscher (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism?
How the heck does X='vegetarianism'?? I don't this there was one German in the 1940's who was a vegetarian, or claimed to be one. It seems that possibly this is the case because there is some fallacy regarding Hitler being a vegetarian. He wasn't. --169.237.165.103 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen this claim outside of Wikipedia, in The People's Almanac (a real book!) It is possible this is untrue, but if it is, it is a common incorrect belief.P.L.A.R. 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He was, but I dont beleive he 'truely' adhered to it until about 1938, before it was selective. I have studied his life in depth, but I can assue you his vegetarianism is supported by most historians user:Pzg Ratzinger


 * Hitler definitely was not a vegetarian, as this article points out, and he should not be listed or classified as such. He ate sausage frequently and ham occasionally.  He also oppressed vegetarian groups in Germany and outlawed nearly every single one of them. Nanten 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hitler did have a very peculiar diet, though, he mostly ate very bland and tasteless food, prepared by his own private chef. If he was a vegetarian, it wasn't because of ethical reasons, but something medical (imagined or otherwise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.225.117 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the vegetarianism references; there are plenty of other charateristics of Hitler that can be used for these illustrations; no point in debating the vegetarianism here. --Manscher (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Binladenum
I removed the following addition by 213.94.253.3 because it's unsubstantiated, unreferenced and isn't really neutral point of view:

Reductio ad Binladenum can be seen in the following quote by Diogo Freitas do Amaral "The agreement to start talks with Turkey [about EU accession] will probably displease Mr Osama bin Laden, who has done everything to prevent this moment arriving." Essentially it is saying: bin Laden opposes Turkish EU membership, therefore Turkey should join the EU.

The quote by Amaral seems to me to be simply a plain statement of fact, and we cannot know if Amaral intended the statement to be interpreted as the editor suggested. Starlord 07:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so there are three options: either he mentions bin Laden because a) his displease is positive for the matter discussed, b) it is negative, or c) it is irrelevant. What are you suggesting is the case? It is either an argument from authority (a), a reductio ad binLadenum (b) or a non sequitur (c). And the ad binLadenum is by far the most likely one. Or maybe you mean that if I were to say "Turkey will join the EU, which would please Hitler", I would not be using a reductio ad Hitlerum? It woult not be so just because I would not add "... so it makes it bad" (which would go implied)? For me it is clear as water, however I would accept that there may be better examples &mdash; Isilanes 17:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate example
I think that I have found the most hilarious example of the reductio ad Hitlerum:. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to add a link to this in the article, or add it to the examples. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link is broken :-(

Oh dear, it seems to have moved. In any case, there was someone arguing that since Hitler believed the earth was round, everyone else who agrees with this is on the same moral level as him. Funny while it lasted. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Try this - - 203.214.158.32 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Found a better one: this pretty much sums up the concept  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.226.6 (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Linux example
Some people say Linux is bad because it's (allegedly) used by Kim Jong Il. How bout putting this as an example? It's much more recent than Cromwell..91.127.220.242 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume that Kim Jong II is bad? 117.195.20.118 (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reductio ad Einsteinium
I've noticed there is no general page for logical fallacies. I think there should be a fallacy called Reducto ad Einsteinium. Basically the fallacy being if Einstein said it, it must be true. I’ve only found this phrase used once on the web. Well, I’ve used it one place as well. That makes three instances of it. Maybe it will catch on. I've used it here: http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8539 More logical fallicies can be found at this link: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html s243a


 * There is a page for that: appeal to authority &mdash; Isilanes 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * not necesaary a Reductio ad Einstenium is an appeal to autorithy. Einstein said many thing on fields that had nothing to do with it's specific field (many of them, wrong), but many people take all of those things that einstein said as "good" or "right" just because EINSTEIN said them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly appealing to authority?? Or are you suggesting that people are referring to Einstin even for topics he is no authority on? --Manscher (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not A Fallacious Statement
This statement: "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are comparable to Hitler." is not actually a fallacy from what I can see. One can compare to Hitler. It is not a very good comparison but you can do it. I think it would be better if it read something like "Hitler had a government; you propose using the government; therefore, you are as evil as Hitler.", this would both be a fallacy and be a better example of reductio ad Hitlerum in my opinion. Colincbn 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, most people crying "Godwin's Law" when you point out something they propose as constituting fascism as well as all comparisons to Hitler. Generally, comparisons to Hitler that I've seen are to /disprove/ ridiculous claims along the lines of "Anyone doing X is a good person."  Did Hitler doing X make him a good person?  Nothing in this article balances this, and unfortunately it likely won't because of the preponderance of "ohh, you can't compare anyone to Hitler, Hitler wasn't human."  Hitler was very human, and those who forget that are likely to not see the next one coming who promises to rebuild the nation, make things better for the nation, etc. ... --Chibiabos 08:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your argument. If someone says "Anyone doing X is good", and you say "Hitler also did X... so you are wrong" (assuming that Hitler being "bad" or "evil" is obvious) is a perfectly valid reductio ad absurdum. This article does not deal with that. This article deals with saying "Doing X makes you automatically evil, because Hitler also did X". &mdash; isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't follow it because you didn't read it; that's how most people mis-use it. Anyone mentioning the word 'Hitler' in an argument, regardless of what the actual point being made is, "automatically loses" the argument to too many people who fail to grasp debate and are unwilling to consider the absurdity of the points of their argument upon which their reasoning hinges.


 * Except that they don't. There's no basis for this in formal argument. If something is a fallacy, it is an actual fallacy whose errors can be pointed out without reference to a particular historical figure. The idea that one man's name can invalidate an argument is in of itself a fallacy. As one cannot have a fallacious fallacy, this is basically a stupid article to put under Philosophy, even if Leo Strauss' feelings were hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.139.169 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason this is mis-used is, in a discussion of whether or not 'Christianity' is good or evil, pointing out that Hitler's violent anti-semitic views (according to what I've read anyway) originated from Christians, inspired by (among others) Martin Luther who founded the Lutheran Church. --Chibiabos 16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, violent antisemitism existed long before Christianity ever did. And Luther's main target of ire were the Muslims -- Jews were hardly a factor in the Empire during Luther's day. Hitler's violent antisemitism had very little to do with Christianity -- the original targets of fascist movements were communists, who were then later associated retroactively with the Jews. - Che Nuevara 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, genocide and white supremacism, as two examples, are not considered evil on their own basis, while Hitler is considered evil because he advocated them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.247.179 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At least they made the trains run on time
I added a note about the, I thought, common enough counter ad-hitlerum, "at least they made the trains run on time"; which I took to be a way of saying "that's a common logical fallacy" without shouting "Godwin's Law!" at everyone. However... I've since heard a reference to the phrase (TV doco) which implied that the phrase refers to the trains transporting Jews to the death camps. In other words, it's the punchline of an old, terrifyingly ironic joke amongst post-War Jewish comedians. ("It could be worse, Moshe, at least...") Hence, off topic, probably offensive in this context. On the other hand, an editor of my text commented that this was an Italian joke at Mussolini's expense. So, still off topic, but not offensive. Basically, I'm just confused.

Delete it, don't delete it??? -- PaulxSA (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe -- but I'm not positive -- that the joke came afterwards, as a way of disparaging the idea that "at least they made the trains run on time". Don't quote me, but it seems most likely to me. - Revolving Bugbear  16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Trains running on time? Reliable transportation (this applies also to Autobahnen for which Adolf Hitler was given undue credit) isn't evil in itself. How a regime gets the trains running on time or builds good roads matters. Non-totalitarian governments have been able to build good roads (the Dutch had a motorway by 1940) and gotten the trains to run on time. Italy had reliable train service before World War I that was badly degraded during the war and took several years to get back to the pre-war norm.

Technological marvels are not proof of the moral superiority of a society but instead proof of the society's ability to marshal the resources to achieve them. The Soviet Union was able to do wonders in early space exploration because it was able to concentrate resources in such an activity even if it was a nasty place in which to live. (Sure, that judgment is biased -- but Soviet living standards were low in contrast to most of the rest of Europe, and the political system allowed practically none of the civil liberties taken for granted elsewhere).--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just Bleh. Europe came from hundreds of years of development. The Soviet Union came from Imperial Russia and other underdeveloped countries. Actually, comparing the Soviet times with the Imperial Tsarist times, opression was the same, but living standars after the revolution raised a lot, as well as education and cultural activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Reducio ad Hitlerum
Would someone bringing up Hitler/Nazis/The Holocaust to show that something else isn't all that bad, and not worthy of being discussed, be an example of reverse reducio ad Hitlerum, and if so, should reverse reducio ad Hitlerum be included in the article?

For example, if there were a discussion on government access to library records, when someone new posts something along the lines of "What does it matter? At least they're not gassing six million Jews. you need to focus on more important things like genocide. Library records are trivial."

The fallacy being that because library snooping isn't as bad the Holocaust, it isn't something which deserves at least careful thought and worry.

(This isn't to say anything about library snooping- there are all sorts of discussions where this could be used, and there will be people on either side of it. I just thought it was a good example.)

I've seen this kind of thing a lot, too.

--Tyrannophobe (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument is best understood as the slippery slope fallacy -- for example, any rightward move on the political spectrum is a move toward Hitler, or that any little repression (as in attempts to discover what persons access child pornography) leads to greater ones.

It's used frequently by the gun fanatics in America who argue that efforts to ban the handguns that criminals prefer to use will lead in the end to the prohibition of hunting rifles and in turn to the inability of people to stand up to a usurpation of dictatorial power. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

On the inevitable Israel/Palestine issue (please help)...
I think we need a new reductio, 'Reductio ad irrelevant Terrorism/Zionism/antisemitism based rant', with an accompanying Godwin-style law (Jerusalem law?) that in any debate on an issue remotely connected with political philosophy, someone will highjack it as a platform for their views on the Isreal-Palestine conflict, and everyone will lose...

I'm trying to edit the 'Examples: New Anti-semitism' section into something vaguely resembling no-POV, and it's not easy. Please help... it's always hard to balance these things without it turning into a tit-for-tat debate.

I think it would be a shame to cull the whole section, as minus the rhetoric they do have a fair point and it is a good example, so long as it's not taken too far. I am very tempted to delete the final paragraph. Interesting as it is, it basically amounts to 'There are academics who have speculated about roots of what they think are the beliefs of two continents regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict', and I don't see what that has to do with either Reductio Ad Hitlerum or logical fallacies in general.

I've left that paragraph alone because I'm not experienced enough to make that call. al

-- -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanomaly (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel
'Scholars explain this phenomenon in different ways depending on which individual or group is using the false analogy. Bernard Lewis explains that Middle Eastern Arabs use it as an attempt to rewrite the history of the Holocaust by placing Arabs in the Jews' roles and Jews in the Nazis' roles (many Arabs admired the Nazis).[10] Mitchell G. Bard explains that Europeans use it to shift the focus away from the crimes of the Holocaust they committed in their own past to the alleged crimes that their past victims (Jews) are committing in the present.[11]'

'Explains' is contentious, it makes the opinions of these people sounds like faact, 'many arabs admired the Naziis' is contentious (I would argue out-right incorrect, with 'many' definetly not being quantifiable, and in fact far less Arabs admiring the Nazis than Britains for example), unecessary and not supported by the source (which does not seem to be that authoritative anyway).86.140.39.142 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole Nazisrael thing and equivalent should be kept to a miniumum, its inclusion only invites debate and polemic, parallels between Israel and aspects of Nazi Germany can be drawn (i.e. nationalism), so it would be incorrect to strawman the argument here by saying they cant, however the linsk are often tenous, and the motives between Nazi Policy and Israeli policy are in many ways different (but in some ways not), and the Israeli policy is far less extreme (at leadt at this moment in time). I think the argument should just be avoided, this page only is ment to provide examples for ad Hitlerum and this one as stated only brings more argument than necessary, if it is included evaluation should be kept to a minimum, it is not wikipedia's job to evaluate each and every use of fallacy.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this Israel/Nazi fallacy is made often enough by enough people and organizations that it deserves to be discussed, and has been discussed, and should be included on WIkipedia. Some of 86.140.39.142's arguments above resort to the vary same fallacy.  The people quoted here are scholars of Middle Eastern history.  Their opinions on the subject are as informed as the opinions of the scientists in the creationism/Hitler fallacy.  --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I state I dont support the fallacy, I state it is a fallacy, I think that correlation does not imply linkage, the extent to which I percieve Israel and Hitler's Germany only stretches as far as I see both as ethincally nationalist states supporting speicific ehtnic groups within their populous. In fact my own opinion is that the comparissons between Nazi Germany and Israel are often strained, and generally the motive behind them is to be 'provocative', i.e. to tell 'the Jews' that they are doing the same thing in Israel that the Germans were doing in Germany. Although I personally find such linkages often offensive, I think to a degree they are also necessary in the fact they point to some aspects of right-wing policy of those in Israel bearing uncomfertable similarities to the policies pursued by the Nazis (i.e. the 'ghettoization' of the Palestinians), I think such comparisons although often forced are not necessary as fallacious as the sections devoted to them try and claim by hiding behind the wall of a seemingly un-realted topic. P.S. you have not adressed my more specific concern, the unqualified and weasel worded statement that 'most arabs supported the Nazis' which is pretty much utterly incorrect.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt have a probelm with the section if it was altered so it dosent look like its trying to prove a point and trying to debunk specific criticism of Israel, frankly it sounds like a bit of an apology and Im not confident that it hasn't been written for this purpose (due to the examples I've given you), again I think 'explains' should be a word limited to things such as the natural sciences, 'explains' here looks like wikipedia is stating what these people say is fact. I wont get into this further but I feel this whole Israel thing was started by someone in punic good faith.86.140.39.142 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S sorry about my atrocious spelling in general, I tpe fast and IM a dyslexic (ask if you want more excuses =)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.39.142 (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Israel does not "ghettoize" Palestinians and, in Israel, justice is blind concerning the race/religion of its citizens. This was not the case in Nazi Germany.  There is no correlation here at all.  For the history of Arab-Nazi collaboration, please read the following articles: Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Jews outside Europe under Nazi occupation, Farhud.  Also, see the source this information is cited to within this article in which Bernard Lewis describes the fallacy thusly, "The memory of both the Jewish victims and Arab admirers of the Third Reich is totally effaced" (emphasis added).  --GHcool (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Justice is not blind in practice over the arab citizens Israel had control over (including the cocupied territories), you must know this well. Im not, however going to get into and argument with you over this point because it is irrelevant to what I am trying to state; As I have stated I recognise the fallacy as a fallacy, although I also recognise not all fallacies point away from a logical point. I am perfectly well aware of Mohammad main al-Husayni, I did not say no arabs collaberated with the Nazis, but as far as I know the overhwhelming majority did not, and in places such as Albania (although not arab per se) muslims banded together to help prevent practically any taking of Jewish citizens. If the situation was replayed now it might be different, but unfortunately for you history is not written based on events in the present. I am sure you are also well aware that Hitler, before the war, was one of the main advocates of a state of Israel, and the Nazi party funded many organisations. There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated with the Nazis than Arabs (at any rate as far as I am aware of in terms of important personages). 'Expain' as I stated is not encyclopaedio in that it states that this referenced person has a monopoly over the subject and has just dealt a finishing blow to any counter-attack, that is not for this encyclopaedia to judge. 'Many Arabs admired the nazis [sic]' is not quantifiable due to the word 'many', it is a weasel word, and is not quantifiable. Although I completly understand that 'wikipedia is not censored' this seems deliberately placed here to make some sort of point, its like saying '...Is a logical fallacy and oh btw many arabs supported the Nazis regime [sic]...', it is irrelevant and question the good faith of the editor who put it there because it seems like an attack. It would be like me putting in the Israeli Defence Force article, 'the government spent X amount of dollars on X new tank oh and btw many Israelis agree the killing of two thousand Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila was a good thing'.86.140.39.142 (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Bernard Lewis is simply a ultra-right neocon historian, his views should definetly not be taken on their own and under no circumstances should be stated as 'fact', his view is actually on the fringe of most historians, so according to WP:FRINGE yadda yadda...86.140.39.142 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just got rid of the "most Arabs admired ..." clause. If you don't like Bernard Lewis, feel free to add more historians' opinions as well as his own, but he is definitely a reliable source and not considered fringe by any means.  Although some consider his views might be on the conservative end of the political spectrum, he isn't an "ultra-right neocon."
 * Most of what you wrote above is categorically false:
 * The Accusation: "Justice is not blind in practice over the arab [sic] citizens Israel had control over (including the cocupied [sic] territories), you must know this well."
 * The Reality: Justice is blind in practice and in theory over the Arab citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs (i.e. the Arabs living in the occupied territories) are not covered under Israeli law because they are not Israeli citizens.  Their legal body is the Palestinian National Authority.  Even so, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on certain aspects of Israeli interaction into Palestinian life with incredible subtlety and has often made decisions that favor Palestinian rights over Israeli security concerns (see, for example, the Israeli Supreme Court Opinions on the West Bank Barrier).
 * The Accusation: "I am sure you are also well aware that Hitler, before the war, was one of the main advocates of a state of Israel."
 * The Reality: This is a ridiculous statement if I ever heard one. If you have proof, feel free to give it, but if not, you've embarrassed yourself deeply.
 * The Accusation: "There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated [sic] with the Nazis than Arabs (at any rate as far as I am aware of in terms of important personages)."
 * The Reality: Another ridiculous statement unworthy of consideration. Prove it or shut up.  --GHcool (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel I have to answer the last two of your statements explicitly because I realize that if left unanswered you could (rightly from judgign an editor who does not back up his statements) get a wrong impression of myself. In reference to Zionists who were backed by Hitler before the war (basically an alliance of convienience as both wished to topple the British government in Palestine) I ahve quickly cameup with this source, it is not at all authoritative but states the examples of the behaviour I was referring to, in no way do I think Zionists and Nazis are the same thing, I just think that stating that arabs were collaberaters when several zionists collaberated would be wrong. Here is the quick link I gained http://www.naszawitryna.pl/jedwabne_en_101.html, I dont honestly think its very good though, I could take more time to elaborate if you wished. My statement about Hitler supporting a state of Israel, is partly due fact that the Nazi regime supported destabilizing Zionist groups, and that Hitler wished to shift 'The Jews' to every other country, even madagascar. The idea was to form a state of Israel somewhere remote and shift 'the Jews' there, but it never came about and instead the regime committed mass-murder.86.138.253.30 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the 'Ghettoization' claim I was refering to Haifa, although i recognise many citities and settlements in Israel and the occupied teritries have been liberalized or pushed bakc, partly due to the fact the Israeli governments line is now against expansion and wishing for the seperation of Arabs and Jews.86.138.253.30 (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? This is not even close to a reliable source. Even if it were (and, I repeat, it most definitely is not), it does not support your earlier claim that "There were in fact far more Zionists that collaberated [sic] with the Nazis than Arabs" (emphasis added).  Please do not continue down this line of argument.  It is a dead end.
 * There is no "ghettoization" in Haifa. In fact, Haifa is well known for its relatively peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Jews.  --GHcool (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The version of this argument I always seem to hear is where the Israelis & supporters accuse Palestinians and Arabs of supporting or being like Hitler in their anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel. In fact I think I may have just read it in this article. Is this just me, or what? --Streona (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler image
I'm not sure the image of the real Adolph Hitler is appropriate here. This isn't a biography of the man. Would anybody object if I deleted the image from the article? --GHcool (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete it or shrink it or something -OOPSIE- (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, please delete this image. It looks like propaganda here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.235.4 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just replaced it with a more appropriate image. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with GHcool's deletion of the image of Hitler. The fallacy has nothing to do with what the man named in it looks like.  However, the image he substituted of an anti-Zionist rally is far worse than the prior image.  The caption seems to promote the rather contentious (and, in fact, almost certainly false) argument that anyone observing similarities or commonalities between Israel and Nazi Germany is committing the named fallacy.  Actually, the article itself is a bit guilty of sloppy political argument that accuses certain political positions of inherently resting on the named fallacy.
 * As reading the article would reveal, the actual fallacy is one of deriving conclusions using a certain flawed logical form. Merely observing or alleging that "Foo is similar to Hitler" is not an example of the fallacy.  The claim might be true or false, but the fallacy only comes in deriving unwarranted conclusions from the alleged similarity.  Nothing in the illustration GHcool inserted is remotely suggestive of the creator engaging in this fallacious reasoning (whether the person may have done so outside the frame of the photo itself, I haven't the foggiest idea, of course).  LotLE × talk  01:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just put the image in the appropriate place. Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"For no reason other than"
I have a problem with the following sentence in the first paragraph of the "Equating Israelis with Nazis" section, specifically what I've made to be bold.

"Critics of the analogy argue that there is an obvious difference between a country defending its own citizens against international terrorism, and carefully planned programs of genocide against civilians for no reason other than their race, religion, sexuality, health, politics, or geographical location in areas associated with resistance."

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. For instance, how can you put "for no reason other than," and then follow it up with six reasons? Does "for no reason other than" not imply that there is a good reason for genocide that the Nazis didn't think of? What should the Nazis' reasons have been? I understand the difference between defense and pre-meditated assault on a specific group, but I'm not sure that there's a point in saying "for no reason other than," because in the logic of genocide (which is inherently discriminatory), those are perfectly valid reasons.

Perhaps it could be worded differently: "there is an obvious difference between a country defending its own citizens against international terrorism - on one hand - and programs of genocide against civilians for reasons such as race, religion, sexuality, etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawrk (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Let's take "reason" out of it altogether since reason has little to do with genocidal programs.  Consider this: "there is an obvious difference between a country defending its own citizens against international terrorism - on one hand - and programs of genocide against civilians  based on race, religion, sexuality, etc." (emphasis added) --GHcool (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll make the change. --Shawrk (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmz
Im not trying to troll here, but I feel the Israel section as I pointed out above) was strawmanning. I believe reductio ad Hitlerum is tiresome in any context, when used against muslims or against Jews. All I would like to point out is, that it is often applied to israel because it is meant to carry extra weight (i.e the Israelis are hypocritcially commiting partially the crimes commited agaisnt them). I think to discount any relation at all between some Israeli policies and some of the Nazis would be incorrect, but i dont see a close realtion. The only reason there is a realtion is because across the racist stratum the same irrational arguments. Some food for thought 'In Hebron, the slogans "Arabs to the crematoria" and "Arabs - sub-humans"' from the wikipedia entry for anti-arabism. Also consider reading soem of the poems of Erich Fried a German Jew who suffered and lost relatives in the holocaust but criticized israel for its similarity in policy towards the Arabs with some aspects of nazi policy towards the Jews.86.156.52.67 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have brought up one case of racists being assholes and another case of someone committing the Hitlerum fallacy. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC: The "New Antisemitism" Section is an editorial
The "new antisemitism" article is absolutel NOT a "neutral point of view" (whatevertf that means anyway). I think it should go away right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.158.2 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The "New Antisemitism" Section is obviously an editorial. Not only is it non-neutral, it's non-neutral on a hotly contested and controversial subject. I think it should go completely, as it is very clearly meant to have a political agenda in shaping how readers think about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, specifically by rhetorically attacking a particular argument used by one side in the dispute. Is that the goal of this page? Is it the goal of the overall wikipedia? Seems like a so-called encyclopedia is the wrong place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.158.2 (talk • contribs)
 * Hmm...I am no expert on the field, but the section itself seems correctly placed but needs a NPOV cleanup. You are correct that some points sound editorial and they have to be removed, also because they are not backed up by the sources (like the second example in the second paragraph). I would not advise removing it completely though but trying to attempt to phrase it more NPOV.  So # Why  07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.24.89.158.2 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the section is pretty good as it stands. --GHcool (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if you deleted the Antisemitism section, you would be obligated to delete the Linking acceptance of evolution with Nazism section aswell. Admittedly, I think that might be the solution here.  How many comparisons to Hitler or Nazis have been made in politics?  Near infinite, that's the whole point of the article.  We shouldn't be citing specific examples, BOTH push a POV by giving them undue weight (Non-zero in comparison to zero, so infinitely times more weight).  Azure Fury   (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the decision ends up being to keep the section, I think it's necessary to include a section on Israelis calling Palestinians Nazis which is probably more common.  Azure Fury  (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The section must be firmly trimmed back; its second paragraph is wholly worthless as the examples highlight nothing about Reductio ad Hitlerum. The earlier sentence about crossing the line into anti-semitism is not needed here -- it doesn't reveal anything about Reductio ad Hitlerum. I, too, would like to see this section counterbalanced with an example of an Israeli using Reductio ad Hitlerum against a non-Israeli. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From the RfC. The section needs to be severly trimmed to one paragraph, or removed. Some of the examples were not very good at all. Comparing treatment of Palestinians in Isreal to treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany is not reductio ab Hitlerum, it's just a comparison. It is not used to suggest that such treatment is bad BECAUSE Hitler did something similar, it is to accuse of hypocricy. Sure,it's a rhetorical device, but it is not this one. Unless these examples have been called RaH bz sources, it shouldn't be in here either.


 * Judging by the lead, the article confuses 2 completely different types of "arguments":


 * 1) Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong
 * 2) Locking up 1 or 2 protesters is Nazism.

Only the 1st of these is the sort of fallacy given in the initial definition, ie guilt by association, or invalid conversion. The other is simply exaggeration. The article ought at least to distinguish these clearly, if not confine itself to 1 of them. Peter jackson (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, but the ad hominem form is at least as popular as the guilt by association form. --GHcool (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Use in Political Rhetoric in the USA
The newly-added section "Use in Political Rhetoric in the USA" needs quite a lot of cleanup (I don't think I've ever seen an edit try to justify itself in the actual prose of the edit before!), but there may be something there worth salvaging. It'll probably be reverted by the time anyone reads this, but, well, maybe worth looking into and recasting. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 12:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of Barack Obama as an example is misconstrued. The comparisons between Obama's and Hitler rhetorical style are more than just a matter of "eloquence." The comparison is really based on the fact that both them have a very loud, forceful and bombastic style.Bostoner (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolution Example
Would an example be useful/appropiate for the article? Gcrossan(Talk) 03:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel Example
I hear the following fallacious argument all the time:

1. Hitler was critical of Jews (and much worse, of course); and,

2. The State of Israel was founded by Jews; therefore,

any criticism of the policies of the State of Israel is to be like Hitler (i.e. racist and anti-Jew)

QED


 * Please review WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you.  --GHcool (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Invoking Hitler in arguments that are not reductio ad Hitlerum
While some have disputed the validity of the  entire counterexamples section, I find it useful with its examples of what, exactly, makes reductio ad Hitlerum [RaH] a logical fallacy. Such illustrations give the reader a clearer idea of what RaH really is. Now, the section concludes with the statement that "... not all arguments involving Hitler or Nazism are reductio ad Hitlerum, although they may be otherwise fallacious." This proposes a class of arguments--those arguments that mention Hitler but do not fail on RaH grounds. If this class of arguments could be strictly delineated, it would serve to more clearly define RaH itself.

It's obvious that this class must include, at least, directly related historical arguments. For example, an argument that "World War II would never have happened if Hitler had been accepted to art school in Vienna" may fail on many logical grounds, but it does not constitute RaH, even though it mentions Hitler. My question is: Does this class also include arguments not directly related to historical accounts of Hitler? Is it possible to invoke the specter of Hitler in an argument that has nothing to do with WWII?

I'm no logician, but I expect that it might be difficult to set a clear boundary. Even so, if it is possible, without violating RaH, to use an analogy involving Hitler in an argument not involving Hitler, it would be instructive if the article included examples. Thinking further ahead, the inclusion of such arguments that are logically valid and others that are fallacious on other grounds would also be helpful. Rangergordon (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your logic and your concern for the article. There are legitimate reasons to mention Hitler in an argument, both to compare and contrast. In addition to your example, legitimate uses might include things like:
 * Unlike lengthy political manifestos such as Hitler's Mein Kampf or Marx's Das Kapital, Smith's political and economic plan was only 20 pages long.
 * In his early movies, usually Chaplin wore a mustache in the same style later adopted by Hitler.
 * President Jones appointment of Smith to Prime Minister, and Smith's subsequent consolidation of all state and military powers, was compared by Trevelyan to Bismarck's appointment of Hitler to Chancellor.
 * President Smith had only served as a corporal in the Big War but after taking power he wore a uniform and frequently over-ruled his generals, following a pattern set by earlier dictators including Hitler and Jones.
 * Hitler showed the folly of engaging in a lengthy, worldwide war with inadequate resources against opponents with much large industrial capacity.
 * Smith never matched the oratorical heights or excesses of a Hitler or Taft, but his speeches were just as passionate.
 * Those kinds of arguments would be legitimate, in my mind. Maybe someone can write a short paragraph that includes something like this as an example. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant and long sections on merits of Zionism, etc
The longest section of this article is on a WP:SOAPBOX digression on the merits of Israeli policies, Zionisms, accusations of anti-antisemitism by various people, etc. While there are no doubt articles where these topics are relevant, none of them have anything whatsoever to do with the logical fallacy that this article is about. Let's please keep the political debates somewhere else, and only address any comparison of Israel and Nazi Germany inasmuch as it illustrates the actual logical fallacy this article is supposed to be about. LotLE × talk 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Among the other non-relevant insertions, an editor has repeatedly stuck in the words "during the Holocaust" about the comparison of Israeli's government to Nazis. As far as I can tell, this is just another logical fallacy committed by the editor: namely "appeal to emotion".  Something like: 'Ooohhh... the word "Holocaust" is scary, so the comparison must be extra bad'.  In any case, many comparisons that are actually made by critics of Israeli policy are quite specific in not comparing that policy to, e.g. 1942 German state policy, but rather to, say, 1932 German policy.  Such a comparison might be poor, and may even engage in the fallacy of this article, but the extra words limit the article to discussing only a narrow subset of such comparisons in a way that the fallacy is not limited.  LotLE × talk  18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another sentence as been repeatedly inserted into the "Critics of Israel or really bad" soapbox. Namely: "The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia describes this comparison as an example of how criticism of Israel crosses the line into outright anti-Semitism. "

I've looked at this a dozen times, trying to catch the glimpse of how you might look at it from just the right angle to find it even slightly related to the topic of this artilce. I just can't manage to squint my eyes in the right way. I'm confident the reason is that this sentence is wholly and entirely unrelated to the topic at hand, but only constitutes political advocacy on an unrelated topic. There might be a Wikipedia article where the sentence is relevant, but it's not this one. The point of this article is not to argue about whether Zionism/Israel is good or bad. For that matter, it is not even to advocate the position that Nazism is bad (though obviously, that assumption is implicit in the possibility of committing the fallacy). It's to discuss a particular variant of Argumentum ad Miseracordiam named in the article title. Whether or not criticism of Israel is anti-semitic isn't even within a stone's throw of relevance to the topic at hand. LotLE × talk 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, of course, that some (as in not all) comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany are about the Holocaust period. Showing an example of the one thing hardly has any relevance to the fact that many or most comparisons are not so.
 * Whether or not making a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in relation to Israel is anti-semitic seems to be purely WP:OR on your part, GHcool. The source you cite lends no support for that notion.  Rather, that external source just criticizes critics of Israel.  Which is fine for the source to do, and might even be relevant to some Wikipedia article.  But it most pointedly does not say anything about whether the critics-of-Israel commit the fallacy of this article, nor about whether committing such a fallacy would necessarily be anti-semitic.  I know that as a personal matter, those are claims you would like to advance; however, this is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX.  LotLE × talk  23:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The point that is extremely frustrating, GHcool, is that you obvious want this to be an article about how bad antisemitism is, and about your belief that critics of Israel are antisemitic (you state as much on your user page). In contrast, I want the article to be about a logical fallacy, in the realm of rhetoric or philosophy. Unfortunately for you, the actual topic of the article is the one that I am aiming for, not the political platform you wish to rail in favor of. It's just disruption for you to insert these soapboxes... and moreover, you've violated WP:3RR in blind reversions of irrelevant material. LotLE × talk 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my restorations of (mostly) relevant material were not as blind as this revision in which I fixed a grammatical typo ("the comparison alleged might be" as opposed to "the alleged comparison might be") which Lulu decided to revert along with the rest of my edit.
 * Secondly, the claim that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia does not call the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in anti-Semitic in relation to Israel is simply untrue. I direct Lulu to the following passages of the cited document: "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state [sic] of Israel ... could include: ... [d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." (the point is first made on page 7, but repeated in no uncertain terms on pages 22, 32, 42, 44, and 81).
 * Thirdly, not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, as I'm sure Lulu already knows. The reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, in the opinion of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and most of the other people who have written on this topic such as Bernard Lewis and Mitchell Bard, is anti-Semitic in this context.
 * I have taken the liberty of reverting Lulu's reversion. I trust that once he/she reads the report and considers my arguments, he/she will not blindly revert again.  At the very least, I trust that he/she will discuss the issue here rather than engage in a revert war.  --GHcool (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop this harmful blind reversion in violation of WP:3RR. Neither the report you cite, nor the Lewis quoted gives any indication of any connection whatsoever to the logical fallacy of this article.  Your user page clearly states that you edit with a highly partisan agenda in relationship to Israel/Zionism, and it is obvious that you are mostly subverting a mostly unrelated topic to try to push a certain POV issues.  This has crossed well over the line of bad faith editing.
 * If you were to read the changes I made rather than just reverting, you would see that I have taken great pains to find the nugget of actually relevant material in the prior section to connect it with the article topic. Your approach is merely harmful to the encyclopedia, and confrontational and disrespectful to me as an editor.  For example, you reverted an addition I made where I actually explained the similarity and difference between false analogy and logical fallacy.  In truth, I don't think that is really necessary in the Israel section at all, but using good faith, I tried very hard to maintain some part of it that actually related to the topic.
 * I guess it's a good thing that GHcool does not think all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. FWIW, I would agree on that point.  But that's completely irrelevant to this article topic, in any case.  The relevant question—one which has an answer that is unambiguously negative—is whether a criticism that is antisemitic is thereby necessarily a case of this logical fallacy.  All the material the GHcool has inserted is essentially variation on the claim that "so-and-so critic of Israel is antisemitic"... not a single part of what s/he has put in has any relation to the actual logical fallacy though.  I would be more than happy to stipulate that everyone who GHcool thinks is antisemitic actually is (for purposes of this article talk page anyway); what is missing is any effort whatsoever to relate that allegation to the topic of this article.  Maybe over at a different article like antisemitism it would be relevant, but not here!  LotLE × talk  03:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what your saying now. I realize now that we have been talking at cross purposes.  I apologize for the misunderstanding and realize that you make a valid point.
 * You have convinced me that the Bernard Lewis and George Gallaway stuff isn't on topic because, although it addresses the fallacious nature of the comparison, it does not address the fallacious nature of the logic. I'm re-editing the section now with what I believe is a good compromise between what I believe is on topic and what you believe is on topic.
 * If you don't mind, I'd prefer if we keep this dispute between us. I think now that I understand your point, it will be easier to hammer something out together.  Perhaps we can do away with the RfC.  --GHcool (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to get as much input from editors as possible. I think as more people chime in with similar perspective to what I've been trying to explain, it will become clearer to you. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident here. Your newest edit consisted of a few reverted elements, all worse than what I had edited: The thing is, I really did make each of the changes I made for a good reason. Rolling them back whole cloth (or even by whole paragraphs, even if not entire section) is disrespectful; and worse, it makes the article worse in each and every case. LotLE × talk 09:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stylistically, the extra wordiness in the enumeration of places where cartoons have been published is just poor writing. Likewise with the odd "abroad" that is a confusing and unnecessary indexical (where "abroad" is depends on where the reader is).
 * The phrase "during the Holocaust" is confusing and misleading for the reasons I've explained in great detail.
 * The European Monitoring Centre thing, that I've discussed in great detail, is precisely the misleading sentence that concerns me most. It is about something unrelated to this article, which merely is a topic GHcool would like to address for personal reasons.
 * Even a tiny thing like Wikilinking "appeal to emotion" erases my correction. That term is already linked earlier in the article, and WP:MOS urges against such redundant linking.
 * Fine, I'm willing to accept all of your arguments about the first paragraph except I think you're making a mistake about the "during the Holocaust" thing. Almost all of the reductio ad Hitlerum things I've seen compare Israel in 2000s to Germany in the 1940s.  Consider:
 * "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943." - George Galloway[
 * The Muslim Student Union of UC Irvine holds an event titled "Never Again? The Palestinian Holocaust."
 * Protest signs reading "Save the Jews Palestinians in Warsaw Gaza," "Gaza: a big concentration camp," "1939 - Auschwitz. 2009 - Gaza," ""Stop Israel's Holocaust," "Holocaust by Holocaust Survivors," "Stop the Nazi Genocide in Gaza," "Nazi Genocide, Israeli Genocide," ""Upgrade to Holocaust Version 2.0," and "Stop the Israeli Holocaust on Gaza."
 * "The Holocaust, that is what is happening right now in Gaza." - Hugo Chavez
 * "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany." a Norwegian diplomat based in Saudi Arabia
 * I can find literally dozens more. The comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany during the Holocaust is unquestionably prevalent and worth noting.  --GHcool (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The large majority of comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany that I've seen make comparisons with Germany in the 1930s. I.e., roughly, "This is what Israel is like now... the danger is of it becoming like Germany in the 1940s."  Obviously, I can find dozens, hundreds, or thousands of such comparisons; equally obvious is that other comparisons also have been made over time.  Of course, my experience of these things is over decades, not restricted to the WP:NEWS story in this month's current events magazine.  It's conceivable that during the last month, and the latest Gaza pogroms, the comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto specifically have made an upward blip in the decades-long rhetorical pattern.  In any case, this insistence on pretending that all comparisons are of one narrow sort (and that all commit the fallacy of this article, whether or not there's any evidence of such) continues to show that GHcool want this article as a soapbox for his politics, not as an article about logic and reasoning (which is the actual topic).  LotLE × talk  23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with "during or before the Holocaust." Thank you, Lulu. I consider the matter closed.  --GHcool (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fallacies and analogies
The point of the European Monitoring Centre thing is not to show that Israel/Zionism is good or bad (that is an entirely separate debate). The point is that making the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy in this context is considered racist/xenophobic. As for the claim that "during the Holocaust" is not part of the fallacy, I direct Lulu to George Gallaway's comment: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943." --GHcool (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you try to explain this in terms so simple that someone with a philosophy doctorate like myself can understand the alleged fallacy?! Apparently George Gallaway made an analogy between the recent Gaza war and the Warsaw Ghetto. I get that, and the fact he did so seems well cited.  When do we get to the logical fallacy part (and what reliable third-party source, ideally, characterizes it so)?! The fallacy required a consequent in the analogy, not only an antecedent.  For example, I think this would be an example of the actual fallacy, if someone claimed it:
 * Gazan's in 2009 are similar to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto;
 * It was good for the Warsaw Jews to resist the Nazi occupation with armed force
 * Therefore, it is good for Hamas in Gaza to resist Israeli action by firing missles into southern Israel.
 * Of course, Gallaway is not the hypothetical person who performed this fallacy. Presenting it as "Lulu's hypothetical" would be WP:OR (though perhaps within bounds of a reasonable example if the article did not already have less contentious ones).  Simply writing, as GHcool does, that Gallaway (or whomever) must be a really bad antisemite in his criticisms of Israel, is unrelated to the topic here.  LotLE × talk  03:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no need to include incomplete examples of statements that might have been extended into full Reductio ad Hitlerum had the speaker made one additional assertion. Let's keep the European Monitoring Centre bit out. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Relevance of accusations of antisemitism
A large part of this article is devoted to an unrelated discussion of whether and which critics of Israel may be antisemitic


 * While at least one editor apparently feels strongly that various criticisms of Israel—specifically ones that somehow mention Nazi policies—are antisemitic, that matter is unrelated to formal logical fallacy that this article addresses. At most, the additions of that editor constitute allegations that various opinion columnist make false or just bad analogies.  However, a false statement is not a logical fallacy, nor for that matter is an offensive political argument by virtue only of its offensiveness.
 * By adding these irrelevant digressions into debates of Zionism, antisemitism, Israeli policy, etc. this article is greatly harmed because readers unfamiliar with the logical fallacy have difficulty separating the philosophical core from general and wide-ranging political arguments and positions. The purpose of any section of this article should be to illustrate the concept it discusses, not to defend the WP:TRUTH of some political position editors think is really, really important.
 * Apart from destruction of some useful WP:MOS cleanups (time indexicals, tone, scope, etc) this diff shows the issue. User:GHcool introduces a variety of extraneous material merely claiming various people are antisemitic without in any way touching on the topic of this particular article.  LotLE × talk  03:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. Let's keep the article about the fallacy by holding to very simple and easily understood examples. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * it seems to me that this whole section belongs in the false analogy page, not here. a false analogy is described as equating two things while "deliberately ignor(ing) critical differences."  reductio ad hitlerum is described as saying, "hitler/gestapo/ did x, therefore x is bad." basically:
 * 1. the version of this that i believe editors are trying to apply here is "the israelis are doing things that are similar to what hitler did, therefore israel is like the nazis"
 * 2. this seems to be a similarity/analogy, not a guilt by association argument.
 * 3. the article itself says it is a false analogy and not the fallacy discussed on the page.
 * 4. i would support more examples on the false analogy page, in fact on all of the fallacy pages, as fallacies can be hard to identify at times. untwirl (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples Section - Biased?
The "Linking acceptance of evolution with Nazism" section, while overall true, has a rather liberal slant to the text, and does not note the frequency of radical evolutionists linking Christianity and conservatism with Nazism. (Ironically, it does, to a degree, use Reductio ad Hitlerum logic to demonize conservatives, but I digress.) The section also veers off into bashing "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for much longer than is necessary to illustrate an example. One or two quick, concise sentences should be enough -- a paragraph at most, seeing as it is only one section of the film. --24.118.16.231 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) ''Edit: Sorry -- that was a stupid comment; it may be unjust, but it's not Reductio ad Hitlerum logic. I really need to think thrice before clicking "Save Page".''


 * I think that since the film Expelled is a relatively widely known example of use of the fallacy, it is worth mentioning. But I agree that the mention could be trimmed.  We don't need to debate the relative merits of evolution and creationism, nor of conservative and liberal or whatever, in this article. If we had a well-cited example to support the anon's allegation that the fallacy is used in characterizing creationists, we could include that (I am not aware of such usage, but it is possible).  LotLE × talk  00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the example should stand - though anytime we include an "real-life examples" section to an article on logical falacies we are probably just creating an environment prone to bias. However, the "Expelled" example does go on FAR too long, to the point of becoming irrelevant to the article's subject matter.  I would suggest deleting the portion following "Richard Dawkins," or, barring that, at least deleting the last sentence of that example. merlinus12 ( talk ) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (GMT)

Image copyright problem with File:AntiWarRallyFeb162003-2.jpg
The image File:AntiWarRallyFeb162003-2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --13:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is now a fair use rationale on the page. I'd appreciate it if we can restore it back to the article.  I will do so tomorrow unless there are any other concerns.  --GHcool (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The image never did seem particularly relevant to the article. It seems very tendentious and tenuous to suppose that the sign or the protester illustrated the logical fallacy discussed in this article.  It mostly seemed to only illustrate "people who disagree politically with GHcool", which is neither here nor there.
 * Now that I see the somewhat bogus fair use rationale, it definitely does not belong here. In particular, it is certainly not the case that no free image could substitute for this one, which is claimed in the rationale.  This ain't any kind of one-of-a-kind image; pictures of protests are dime-a-dozen, and there's nothing very special about the rally photographed in the unfree image.  LotLE × talk  00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You see it is not so simple.
This article is about (that is what I understand), the fallacy that anything that Hitler has done is bad because Hitler is bad, an error of logic, but I've tried to give examples to why it is not so simple, this contribution has been censored, removed, arbitrarily? tries to give examples of why Hitler and Jews is not the only horror story in the world, this is in principle the very thing that this article too tries to inform, that suffering of humans is belittled by ad nauseum references to Hitler. The reference to Roma is given as they were the ones who at least suffered as much as the Jews at the hands of Hitler, how Europe treating them now?

I wish to have the my previous post back as it is definitely not non-article talk. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, your earlier contribution was not clearly about improving this article. Instead, it was a rant about how there have been other evils in the world besides Hitler, how other world leaders have been responsible for great killings and horrible wrongs and not been held accountable. Such discussion has nothing to do with the Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy. If you have something to add about the usage or history of this logical fallacy, stick around. If you simply wish to correct the point of view that Hitler was the worst world leader that has ever existed, you're in the wrong place. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And don't add hidden text to this page... it doesn't do anybody any good. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The hidden text was for your good if you had the intentions to bring my post to the surface, all you would have need to do was to remove the insert hidden comments tag. You did not.

The whole premise of Reductio ad Hitlerum is that Hitler is evil personified, my question is does he tower over everybody to such as extent to assume this premise? Is my contribution WP:SOAPBOX, do you - Binksternet have the Hitler like right to search and remove such posts even if it is, without inasmuch as by your leave, my experience with wikipedia is bad in these respects and I am not going to play the edit war game, it is a pity that even the talk pages have been encroached by those who have the means to muzzle views that they do not like. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If your aim was toward improving the article, even if I didn't agree with it, I would not have deleted your contribution here. Instead, your intent appeared to be to spread a point of view that you think should be shared. This talk page is not a general discussion forum about Hitler or about any political leader who has committed evil deeds, and your point of view about such subjects does not belong.
 * Try this: find an expert author who describes Reductio ad Hitlerum the way you would like to see it described here in this article. Once you find such a source, you will be able to add something to this article and provide a reference to back it up. Without a reference, you have nothing that will stick. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yogesh Khandke, I read your deleted text that ends "and the moral of the story is..." That text doesn't belong here.  This isn't the place for stories.  This isn't the place for moral lessons.  This is where we discuss how to make the article more encyclopedic.  The text you put here was appropriate for a blog but it is not appropriate for here.  If it makes you feel better, yeah, we know there are people who were as bad as Hitler.   It's not the point of the article.   Hitler is more famous, and had a distinctive appearance, and was the mastermind behind a particularly large-scale atrocity and well-known, and people have seen movies of him shouting, and his name is easy to pronounce, so people refer to him often.  That's the point of the article: people often compare people to Hitler and that comparison has been given a name.  Wikipedia isn't here to support the "Reductio ad Hitlerum" argument nor to refute it.  Wikipedia is here to explain it and tell you what has been published about it.  Now what is with calling an fellow editor Hitler like because he deleted text you wrote?  That comparison would be defamatory if it wasn't just ridiculous.   Please think.  --Boston (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By moral of the story I meant, the summary of the above. This is the talk page and not the article, Hitler is more famous etc. is just a perception, people does not mean only Americans and Englishmen, New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians even in English language wikipedia, I used Hitler like as I knew there would be a strong retaliation, once I had just rearranged text on a talk page, not an alphabet was changed, I was berated strongly for that, talk page is views and discussion, if somebody does not like what is written or considers it inappropriate, it should be marked as such, not subject to this Hitler like removal. We can have discussions like Ghandi (I guess they mean Gandhi) was not as good as Hitler was bad, and loads of similar stuff, but not what I have written. Rules are always applied arbitrarily in the real world and here. We have a saying "One carries the stick, owns the buffalo", as long as the stick is in your hands, you can force your perception on the world, make rules that apply to others but not to you etc.


 * Apparently using the phrase Hitler like can make me liable for legal action where you live, I am not sure it is so serious where I am. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A few simple questions, That is the moral of the story, a summary of what I have to say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Who has the rights to delete inappropriate content on a discussion page?
 * 2) What is the procedure for executing such deletes?
 * 3) Does the person who carried out the deletes in my case have such rights?
 * 4) If he does, did he follow the steps necessary to carry the deletes?
 * 5) If the answer to 3 and 4 is negative, what action can be taken against the said person?
 * Firstly, "defamation" isn't an exclusively legal term and I said your comment was not defamatory, it was ridiculous. Secondly, I wish you would get the point that your comments weren't censored.  They were blatantly irrelevant.  Anyone can remove blatantly irrelevant context.  You can too.  I don't know the procedure to go complaining about it but I can assure you if you waste your time doing that you'll be even more disappointed and frustrated by the outcome.  I don't even care much if your comments are deleted or if they remain on this page -- the only problem is they would encourage people by example to make similar irrelevant comments about other subjects on other pages.  I'm not your enemy. You made a good point, but chose the wrong place to make it.  My main hope is that you might understand this and let the matter rest. --Boston (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If I do not like something on a talk page I would add my comment, or ignore it, won't delete. However as you have written, it is best I let the matter rest. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)