Talk:Reductio ad Hitlerum/Archive 2

No sources discuss Israel/Nazi comparisons as this fallacy
Not a single source used in the israel section discusses this fallacy - only that those comparisons are "taboo" or "antisemitic". this does not belong on this page. untwirl (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added one. Thanks.  --GHcool (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * great. summarize that source re:barbed wire and remove the rest as it is original research.  untwirl (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I summarized the source, and I agreed with Timurite's removal of the unsupported ad hominem section. Binksternet (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * GHcool added the WP:OR stuff back in again, saying that the material is referenced. I hold that the references prove only the existence of Israeli/Nazi comparisons but that they don't demonstrate the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy of logic. I will attempt to examine each such reference here:
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3136059.stm Interpreting Egypt's anti-semitic cartoons. A quote: "Mohammed Khalil, who teaches Mass Communications at Cairo University, says depicting Israelis as Nazis is legitimate political commentary." This is not fallacy.
 * http://www.adl.org/PresRele/UnitedNations_94/5276_94.htm ADL Says Libyan U.N. Representative's Remarks Equating Israel With Nazi Germany 'Deeply Insulting'. A quote: "There can be no comparison between Israel's effort to defend its citizens against terrorism and the Nazis' systematic killing of six million Jews in the Holocaust," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director." This is not fallacy.
 * http://www.forward.com/articles/9042/ The Featherman File. This article is used by GHcool to support the phrase "These comparisons commit the fallacy", meaning the previous two comparisons found in the bbc and adl websites. The Featherman File does not even mention the preceding arguments. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The creationism and American political sections are also about fallacious comparisons to Nazis. Most of the time, the comparison between X and Nazis are not formal fallacies.  Usually they take the form of an insult with a vague explanation.  For example, I could say, "Wikipedia editors sometimes silence information.  Silencing information is engaging in Nazi-like behavior.  Therefore, Wikipedia editors sometimes engage in Nazi-like behavior." If I wrote something as ridiculous as that, I would be guilty of committing a reductio ad Hitlerum, even though the argument is a formally valid syllogism.  The Israeli/Nazi comparison is so common that it deserves background.  --GHcool (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: My edit was deleted because it was thought that it violated WP:NPA.  I did not intend for it to be a personal attack, but I can appreciate that it probably wasn't the best way to phrase it.  I'm restoring the comment and replacing what was once considered a personal attack with a new italicized phrase.  Again, I apologize if I hurt anyone's feeling or if I behaved improperly.  --GHcool (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The current edit seems acceptable, however I think the title of the example would be more accurate as "Linking Israeli policy with Nazis" rather than Israelis as a people. Mekeretrig (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section title has been changed to "Detention camps in Israel and Nazi Germany" so your suggestion no longer applies. However, if the former title is brought back, I think plural Nazis is perfectly mated to plural Israelis; the comparison and linking of the two is the whole point. Using the phrase "Israeli policy" weakens the concept to nothingness. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There still hasn't been any citation or explanation that actually connects the topic of this article with the whole Israel-is-good-and-only-antisemites-deny-it soapbox that GHcool has inserted repeatedly (most recently in blatant violation of WP:3RR). It is true that various people have used the word "Nazi" and the word "Israel" in the same sentence or paragraph, but that's about as close to the actual fallacy as any version of the section has ever come (and no, that really ain't very close). It has been far too long with this digression in the article, and it just does not belong here since no one can show any citational support for its inclusion. LotLE × talk 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is correct unless the example can be properly supported with sources that reference the fallacy. Otherwise the edit is just controversial and seems to be original research and conjecture. Mekeretrig (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think GHcool is right in that the comparison is common enough to merit a mention. This recent article by Gideon Levy might be relevant, although I'm sure there are others. -- Nudve (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH /WP:OR
I am afraid that the bulk of the article is synthesis and discourse based on small sample of occasional references, especially in section "Fallacious nature of the argument", as well as in sections which evaluate various examples. Timurite (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

rm soapbox picture as original research and bad example
Someone did rm the soapbox-picture showing a Israel-flag Nazi-flag comparision (anti-Gaza-bombing-protests) before I could. Here is why I would: reason (1) this is not an example of the fallacy, and (2) the association with RaH here is original research.

(1) To compare is correct as a logic element. There are multiple logic valid statements that draw a comparision between Israel and Nazi behaviour Robinson. This is a researchable, academic exercise. Maybe a certaint research has flaws - then it's up to the scientific way to improve the research (not here), not claim it as illogic/fallacy. Maybe the conclusions are not welcome - swallow it, don't [WP:CENSOR] it.

(2) Stating that any Israel-Nazi-combination is a RaH is original research, because it discards correct academic research beforehand. It does not prove the therefore-step in the RaH-fallacy. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reported User:GHcool for 3RR on this here -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

rm "subtype ... Holocaust" for original research
rm the sentence A subtype of the fallacy is the comparison of an opponent's propositions to the Holocaust.[1], the source being the source mentioned. The source does not mention the words "subtype" or "Holocaust" at all, there is no addition involved to make it a different 'type' (new element? use different?), and a "comparision" itself is not enough to declare it a RaH-fallacy beforehand (because the illogical step therefore is not mentioned/proven. The comparision could be logic). Not in the source, no supporting description and original research. Removed. -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Barbed wire"-example not a fallacy (Result: it is now)
About the Linking Israelis-Nazis section. On the barbed wire-example, the source Don't Fence Me In herewrites: For example, examining the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust, urges one to ponder how it is that the reappearance of barbed wire in the Israeli landscape does not engender an outcry among survivors.
 * Please, can someone point the fallacy here?
 * "a use specifically contrasted with" (wiki's text, not source's): no, not specifically. The source lists more uses of barbed wire, and other contrasts. This is just one more. And also: not contrasted, compared.
 * The source writes "examining ... similarity and differences" (emphasisis by me). He's just setting up a comparision. Examining, comparing, testable.
 * Then again: pointing out a contrast is not a fallacy. It's correct logic. The resulting question is a consequence of the correct logic. No reduction here.

As the source does not commit fallacy, the (non-)example should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding: Well, I should also check the sequence-source (A. Silow-Carroll) here too. This source writes in a review to the source of the (non-)example: ''Logical Fallacy Alert: The Nazis used barbed wire. Israelis use barbed wire. Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis. Or so goes a throwaway premise in Neve Gordon’s review''.
 * The "or so" gives it away: a new construction of the original text. [red herring|Red herring fallacy].
 * Also, the quote "Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis" does not appear in the original text at all. This source not reliable. Will delete right now, of course. -DePiep (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Stroked, not a red herring. (+ mimor typo) -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Silow-Carroll's words are the whole reason for the paragraph comparing Israelis to Nazis. He pointed out what he saw as Gordon's fallacy. Whether a fallacy or not does not matter. Calling his analysis faulty is not for us to say. He got it in print, it's out there in public. We can use it as an example of what reductio ad Hitlerum means to a magazine writer. Restored. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that Silow-Carroll made up the "Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis" part has no bearing on whether he is reliable as a source. He is describing his take on Gordon's prose. His view can't be struck down because he makes Gordon sound trite by incorrectly paraphrasing or by putting words in Gordon's mouth. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your point about 'contrasted' vs. 'compared'. I put 'compared' into the text. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I get it! It surely needed an explanation. So now I take a 180-degree turn on this: the Silow-Carroll-quote is the example of the RaH-fallacy. It is not a supporting evidence or so. Thanx Binksternet. -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewrote the section more towards the example, i.e. Silow-Carroll's remark. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarifying by removing unnecessary words: imo the Silow-Carroll-quote (and the reference to it in the text) "Or so goes a throwaway premise ..." could be omitted here for irrelevance. But I won't do it myself, I could miss a point. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Since I understand the example here, I suggest (again) we give the Silow-Carroll-(S-C)-part a more prominent place, i.e. at the beginning. The backgrounds 1 & 2 then are only minor illustrations. Imo background 1 is the Gordon-review, and that one has the book as a background 2. So 1 and 2 are of very minor interest, more like a footnote. This is more so, because S-C constructs the RaH-sentence himself (openly). It can even stand on its own, as we do not care (here) about the correctness of the quote itself: S-C's original resource is OK (as Binksternet made clear above). I skip for now that including the intro "Warning fallacy ahead" is not clarifying the example, it might wrongfoot a first reader.

I will illustrate my idea in an edit. Not to editwar, I'll be back here -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reverse-chron construction is jarring to me since I composed the previous chronological version, so let me mull it over and try to understand it from a first-time reader's perspective, with an eye to teaching about RaH. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. My thought is that the example should be prominent, we could even do without the prior happenings, chron less important here. The example is OK!, as you made clear above. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meant to sound more positive. So: Go ahead, you're invited! I'm interested in whatever the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK as it is now. Make the final sentence blockquote? -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While the insertion of the Silow-Carroll comment really does still feel like a WP:SOAPBOX attempt to shoehorn in some pro-Israel boosterism into an unrelated article, it is narrowly true that S-C at least alleges the specific fallacy that the article is about. Whether S-C is right in his analysis isn't really for us to judge, since that would be WP:OR. The problem remaining here is really just WP:WEIGHT: one comment by someone reviewing a book review in 2002 is pretty obscure as a way to squeeze out a section heading.

I think I'll probably take out these headings, since "Alleged examples" is probably perfectly fine as a heading to encompass fewer than a half-dozen paragraphs. LotLE × talk 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I liked the "micro-subsection headings"; I thought they were very helpful to readers. The little headings made for a quick dive into the part of the article the reader was most interested in. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only useful if you want to "dive into" vague insinuations that the examples encompass every mention of "X plus Hitler", where the breadth of the heading vastly overreaches the limited scope of the narrow example. In any case, it's completely against WP:STYLE to have headings for such short sections.  LotLE × talk  18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dog Latin all?
The intro mentions it is Dog Latin, that is not regular Latin but, say, Englishised Latin. Is that correct for all the bold titles used:


 * Reductio ad Hitlerum, also
 * argumentum ad Hitlerum, or
 * reductio ad Nazium (or
 * argumentum ad Nazium) – dog Latin

Could someone confirm or denounce a dog latin? I think, if the word is conjugated correctly, it is Latin. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations" section entirely OR
In its current form, the "allegations" section would appear to entirely consist of original research (with the possible exception of example 1 - Barbed Wire). The only people making the "allegation" that these individuals have committed this logical fallacy (from the available evidence) are the authors of the section. While I do agree that each of the three might be an example of the fallacy in action, it seems those sort of judgments are outside of the scope of an encyclopedia article and more appropriate to an op-ed piece.

The nature this fallacy lies in unwarranted comparisons to Hitler. Deciding which cases are truly unwarranted and which are justified necessarily requires a judgment call which, when applied to a living individual who has at least a modest following, is bound to be controversial and viewed as biased by a significant number of people. As such, a section details these episodes - barring evidence that the allegation of fallacy is being leveled by a notable third party in verifiable form - is inherently inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

We should probably delete this section, and possibly replace it with a section detailing "Examples" which are purely hypothetical, unless the editors can find a citation of someone other than wikipedia referring to these individuals as having committed "reductio ad hitlerum" - preferably IN THOSE WORDS.

Barring objection, I intend to enact this proposed change in 3 days in accordance with WP:Be Bold and WP:OR. - merlinus12 ( talk ) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely objection. We provide pretty good citation of those allegations actually being made in all the cases listed.  I don't really see the the point of merlinus12's comment.  LotLE × talk  22:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit strange as well that a new editor, with no edits other than this talk page, is quoting policies quite so proficiently. It sort of reads like a deceptive intention to the above comment.  LotLE × talk  22:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The section doesn't merit deletion. It serves a good purpose as a point of reference so that the reader can see how this concept has been applied by others. Note that your WP:BRD cycle is foreshortened with your decision to D (discuss) first, obviating the other two intrusive steps. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the references for the "Allegations" section again, after reading your remarks. (BTW - brand new editor, no idea if I'm quoting policies correctly here.  Should I have just gone ahead and made the edit before discussing?)  I see that you all have provided great documentation for people alleging that, for instance, George W. Bush is comparable to Hitler.  We're good on that score.  However, given the nature of this topic - a logical fallacy - we would not only need to show that "X claims Y is Hitler" but that "X claims Y is Hitler, and the context dictates that the comparison is inappropriate" for it to be a proper example.  By placing these people in a section listing examples of fallacious thinking, you have not only identified the (quite objective) fact that they said someone else is comparable to Hitler in some way, but that they were using the comparison to make an unjustified emotional appeal (a conclusion which, while probably true in each case, is nonetheless subjective and undoubtedly controversial).  What would be great in this section is examples of people alleging, not that "other people=Hitler," but alleging that "other people are using the fallacy by saying that people=Hitler."  Also if one of more of you could help me understand these policies a little better (where would it be appropriate to discuss that?), I'd appreciate it. - merlinus12 ( talk ) 5:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree it would be nice to have a more explicit 3rd party who says "The comparison made by X is a RaH". Unfortunately, the fallacy seems to be relatively little known by name, or at least its somewhat satirical naming tends to make it unused in most discussions.  In regard to Exposed, I think Dawkin's criticisms of the film come pretty darn close to saying the filmmakers commit RaH, but indeed he doesn't actually name the fallacy as such.  It's almost unfortunate that the kerfuffle about the barbed-wire book is the most explicit thing we found of someone naming the fallacy in outside sources, since the whole Israel tangent is mostly an effort by some partisans to get in some stuff opposing criticism of Israel/Zionism... but they did find a (minor) source that names the fallacy (almost, it's called a fallacy, but not quite explicitly RaH by name). Better examples would be very welcome.  LotLE × talk  19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Smoking
Where is the logical fallacy? Banning smoking was something Hitler did, and is a totalitarian action. The Facist was the first modern leader to propose such a policy. Could not the example be changed to vegetarianism, which is less controversial.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, banning smoking requires a totalitarian state with a disregard for individual liberty,and a network of informers. It was also important to Hitler, and his Nazi party. I repeat that I do not think it is a good example.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have changed the lede example to eating sugar, which seems much more neutral, and was already in the article93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was a big fan of the smoking example, but I have to admit your sugar example is better, because it is such a trivial matter. Tying our example to a real issue of Hitler's time isn't as clean. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The smoking-ban example is a very good one because it is an issue about which people actually have heated arguments, and try (well or poorly) to reason about the right policy actions. The sugar thing is very difficult to get a grasp on since it is not clear who might argue what, or why, and it provides no handle on the types of arguments (and fallacies) that discussants actually make. The smoking-ban thing has a nice structure since (a) many reasonable people (including me) support various bans on smoking, especially in public spaces; (b) Nazis apparently supported a similar policy; (c) opponents of these bans really do lean on that analogy; (d) the similarity of action between, say, Nazi Germany and New York State, does not actually carry the logical force purported to it. You really can't get any of that relevance out of the sugar thing (I guess a couple high schools have removed vending machines of high-sugar foods; but you'd need a lot more context to even see what the analogy/disanalogy was). LotLE × talk 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there a version of this article which used Hitler's stated (but not total) vegetarianism as the example? Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Vegetarianism could be a good example too or instead. That's also a thing which people actually debate, in a way similar to smoking.  I haven't really heard of legislative requirements around vegetarianism though, which still makes the smoking example seem a little be more compelling.  LotLE × talk  19:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Banning smoking is a bad example, because it is a policy that was pioneered by the Nazi's, with a strong link to their programme of creating a healthy masterace. Hitler was a former smoker, who decided to stop other's from smoking once he had stopped himself. Describing such comparisons as "logical fallacys" is controversial. Pro-Choice groups have made much use of the Nazi link, and it is worth covering in the article - see http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/17/5/289 for a pro ban analysis - however given that there are complex arguments on both sides, and it is not mentioned else where in the article, it is innapropriate in the lede. I still think the sugar example best expresses the idea of Reductio ad Hitlerum, as it is obviously irrelevant. It has also been used to illustrate a definition elsewhere - http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Smoking is a good example precisely because "there are complex arguments on both sides". To give readers a sense of the fallacy, it is self-defeating to give an example (like sugar) that is weirdly formal without any grip on how actual arguments happen! An argumentum ad miseracordiam like this only functions because people are invested in the outcomes, if the example is strictly formal, readers will not understand the point. LotLE × talk  23:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But the article does not investigate, or mention, the validity of the argument. Given that sugar has been repeatedly used, and that such a tactic would derail an argument about sugar, why not use it, or one of the following definitions - "If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..."

-- Thomas Fleming, editor, Chronicles (Rockford, Illinois), May 2000, p. 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting to sugar, given the 2:1 support for it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Sections
I can't find any reducio ad hitlerum claimed in the sources for the following, so have relocated it here. "The Reductio ad Hitlerum has been used in criticisms of United States Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, and against 2008 Presidential candidate John McCain.    For example, A Penn State trustee compared Reagan's rhetoric when addressing a Young Americans for Freedom chapter to Adolf Hitler indoctrinating the Hitler Youth.  If the audience is meant to derive an equivalence between the two addressed organizations, this would constitute the fallacy; comparing the speakers' rhetoric alone might be a hyperbolic or bad analogy, but would not be  an instance of the fallacy itself."93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The following passage, and source, makes no mention of hitler, so have removed it here. "Neve Gordon, in a 2002 book review of Olivier Razac's Barbed Wire: A Political History, questioned why: "the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust [...] does not engender an outcry among survivors." In a January 2003 response to this review, Andrew Silow-Carroll alleged Gordon's use of Reductio ad Hitlerum with, "Logical Fallacy Alert: The Nazis used barbed wire. Israelis use barbed wire. Thus, the Israelis are like Nazis." "93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the phrase Hitler (or the Nazis) in the lead section. Mention of Hitler is not required to have reductio ad Hitlerum. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. However, please check the references to the first section, as they seem not to compare methods, as well as being pretty obscure.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Need for balance in the lede
I suggest adding the following sections. At the moment the lede says that to compare any politician's or political party's behaviour to Hitler's or the Nazi party is a logical fallacy. I cannot see why it could not be an accurate comparison. It fails to address the issue of intent, on behalf of the user and the identifier- ie that valid comparisons are dismissed by the wide misuse. "If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ..."

The name does not make any statement about whether reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but reflects the emotional effect Nazi and Hitler comparisons have, and the disruptive effect on debate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be classified as a semiotic term of political debate, rather than philosophy.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

wrong direction fallacy?
Is this appropriate - how does this relate to "Hitler ate sugar, so sugar is bad" - would it mean that hitler was bad, because he ate sugar? "Wrong direction is a logical fallacy of causation where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa. Children that watch a lot of TV are the most violent. Clearly, TV makes children more violent."93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ad Hilterum = ad hominem?
Isn't this whole article just about an example of argumentum ad hominem? What encyclopaedic benefit does dedicating such an article to Hitler have? Are there even any formal references to the term "reductio ad Hitlerum" or similar other than the cited Natural Right and History?

This really looks like Godwin's Law applied to ad hominem to me. I argue the article should be deleted.

- Man in shack (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the coinage of "reductio ad hitlerum" by Strauss preceded Godwin's invention of his law by 37 years, it's a little hard to see RaH as an "application" of Godwin's Law (apparently this coinage was also 3 years before Godwin was born, though presumably Godwin was not coining any candidate laws during his infancy, in any case). LotLE × talk  08:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it was coined a long time ago, I am not sure that it pre-dates Godwin's law in usage. This article makes very little reference to Strauss, and expands the phrase to mean something very different to what he wrote. For example, it seeks to cover comparisons to Nazi policies. I think it should be reduced to a stub, in line with the French version.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was certainly familiar with the phrase RaH prior to 1990 (but then, I was an academic philosopher), used since then in pretty much the sense discussed in this article. Not that this article is great; but it is odd for a new, anonymous editor to suggest reducing an article to a stub (rather than expanding and improving it).  In truth, however, I think this article is about the length it ever should be.  There's no reason for it to become some sort of 5000 word monstrosity detailing every usage of the term ever, but neither is there any reason to make it shorter than it is. Fixing the French version would be a worthwhile project though, if your French is good enough to do that (mine is not).  LotLE × talk  00:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been editing for over a year. Please explain what is wrong with the French version, it seems much better than this one, and I don't think it needs fixing.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Olivier Razac
I have included the whole of the relevant paragraph from Olivier Razac's review, in the interest of neutrality. "Explicating and trying to understand the continued widespread use of barbed wire could have added an additional dimension to this fascinating book. For example, examining the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust, urges one to ponder how it is that the reappearance of barbed wire in the Israeli landscape does not engender an outcry among survivors.'[6]"93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the seventeen prior discussions of this topic. Some certain WP:SOAPBOXers have tried to give far, far WP:UNDUE weight to the entire pro-/anti-Zionism matter.  That isn't the topic of this article, and is not even particularly important or interesting as an example of where RaH may (or may not) have been made.  A large blockquote gives this matter far too much emphasis, where the trimmed version perfectly well explains why there is some relevance of the Gordon/Silow debate to this article (which is the only aspect worth including here).
 * However, Anon, the other quote you added about Classicism seems perfectly helpful, and a welcome addition. LotLE × talk  00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The full quote gives the context, and was used in full in the criticism cited. The selective editing of the quote to "the only aspect worth including here" violates neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you are describing is known as "copyright violation". It is our affirmative, and in fact legal, obligation to use the minimal necessary portions of quotes to illustrate the specific point we use them for.
 * I am a bit concerned about the additions you have made, Anon, to the article in the last few hours. I want to take a closer look, but few of them seem to actually relate to RaH, but rather just to "someone or another mentioned Hitler".  We should not turn this article into indifferent mush rather than discuss a logical fallacy specifically.  LotLE × talk  07:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Compare your preferred version of the quote - "the architectural similarity and differences between the camps Israel has constructed to hold Palestinians and the concentration camps Jews were held in during the Holocaust [...] does not engender an outcry among survivors."

- to the full quote (cited in full in the criticism). The reference to barbed wire has been removed. Why? All the sourced examples I added have been described as "Reducio ad Hitlerum".93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the missing part of the the quote. I would like to know why "Explicating and trying to understand the continued widespread use of barbed wire could have added an additional dimension to this fascinating book." should not be added, given that the critic quoted the passage in full, and the editing here seems to be OR, and POV.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
This has been used as a description of this argument. I think it should be included- any comments? http://www.theness.com/how-to-argue/93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"they have done something similar to what Hitler did" -How is this argumentum ad hitlerum?
The following example contains no logical fallacy, and is a simple comparison. Moreover it is not identified in the source as an argumentum ad hitlerum. To me it just serves to push an anti Chavez POV, and should be removed. "In 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said, “Israel criticizes Hitler a lot. So do we. But they have done something similar to what Hitler did, possibly worse, against half the world.” In their critique of the Chavez presidency and political philosophy, Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sánchez wrote in the Boston Review that the quote supports their view that "Chávez himself has been at the forefront of an effort to equate Israel with Hitler, and then to retroject Jewish conspiracy onto the Venezuelan opposition."[7]"93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source identifies it as a false analogy. Furthermore, "Israel=Hitler" is logically equivalent to "AIDS=Hitler," "Obama=Hitler," etc.  --GHcool (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, GHcool should stop trying to coopt this article into a general pro-Israel screed, in which anyone who says anything negative about Israel is magically transformed into committing RaH. There are plenty of places (mostly not on WP) to argue the political merits of Israel, this is an article about logic and rhetoric.  LotLE × talk  18:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is disappointing to see someone who knows so much about logic and rhetoric to use a straw man. I am not inserting "anything negative about Israel" into this article and am definitely not turning this article into a pro-Israel screed.  Israel=Hitler and Obama=Hitler and AIDS=Hitler and evolution=Hitler and all of the other arguments that take the form of X=Hitler are examples of false analogies, false premises, and ad hominems that can be considered RaH's.  Perhaps Lulu believes that all of the above are examples of rhetorical and logical soundness, but the sources cited in this article do not.  --GHcool (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT the article on false analogy. After making so many dozens of edits, it's pretty shocking that GHcool hasn't yet figured that out. Try reading the definition of RaH given in the lead to understand what it is actually about, perhaps. Just because someone claims that "X is like Hitler" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with this article (though a comparison of that sort is, indeed, a first step in the fallacy). Arguing that X isn't really "like Hitler" even though someone said it was does not mean the original statement relates to this article either, it just means that that particular WP editor (usually GHcool) disagrees with an assertion of some published source. Get yourself a blog, don't pollute WP article space with your own political posturing! ... Moreover, if GHcool had ever made one single edit that amounted to anything other than "Israel is good" (e.g. any other topic), it would be a lot easier to assume good faith. As is, it reads like one big WP:SOAPBOX that has no place on WP. LotLE × talk 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind though Lulu, that the concept is a general fallacy with Hitler as the modulus. There are perhaps more than a few related, derived, or similar variants, and these may themselves also exceed the bounds of fallacy as much they do logic. :-) Including them with a mention and a link would be appropriate if these deserved an another article. It is a fallacy to assume that just because these may not deserve their own article, they also don't deserve mention here. Its also quite counterconceptual to derive categorical definitions from certain sources, such that justifies the omission of related concepts. -Stevertigo 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is true that I spend much of my time on topics related to Israel (and the defamation of Israel), I'd like to point out that I make edits on other topics as well such as film editing. I hope this restores trust in my editing abilities if it was ever in question.  --GHcool (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Socialism fallacy
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevertigo (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Expelled" as an example?
Has anyone here seen "Expelled"? I think that this would be an excellent example, but I don't want to add it myself seeing as I don't know that much about this topic (Reductio ad Hitlerum), and I could be wrong altogether. Thanks! Cliche Screenname (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to argue that the Nazis did not, in fact, base their racist agenda and eugenics on Darwinist philosophy? That's the claim that Expelled made, not that the present Neo-Darwinist movement is any kind of disguised Nazism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.148 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Reductio ad Hitlerum in practice
I'm going to admit I'm not currently a huge fan of this section. Any section that starts with "allegations of" is already deep in the negative. I would challenge us all to better up the section by:
 * 1) making it revolve less around US politics and less around the second half of this decade
 * 2) changing the stinking title to be some less weasely
 * 3) take out the myriad of examples: it just reads like a poorly integrated elongated list. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am on the fence about whether the section should be there at all. In its defense, it really doesn't look nearly as unbalanced as Magog the Ogre suggests: it's really not that American or that dominated by recent examples. There's a slight skew, but actually pretty moderate.
 * However, if we keep a section of this sort, it seems impossible to do it without a word a lot like "allegations" in there. I don't see that as a bad thing necessarily, but I cannot think of any other way to avoid making the section far worse.  The problem is that in 100% of the cases we have found or are likely to find, the story is that person A makes some statement, person B alleges A commits RaH.  If A responds further it is to deny committing the fallacy (or even if no response from A, the form of the original assertion claims legitimate analysis or non-tainted metaphor)... and it really is not the case that everything that mentions Hitler is actually a RaH (some things actually can be in some respect "like Hitler" without committing any logical fallacy... poor or unhelpful reasoning isn't a fallacy by itself, BTW).  We would go far too far if we were to baldly claim that A does commit (objectively) the RaH, for any non-artificial example we might encounter.  LotLE × talk  07:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Simple solution: Delete it as the trivia it is; the section is simply indiscriminately collected information without context or any particular meaning or significance to readers. The only such example(s) that should appear in this article are those that can be reliably sourced as noteable occurrences in their own right. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am all for the section to be kept, in general, but it can probably be pruned a bit. There is nothing indiscriminate in the concept of having this information per se (it is absolutely relevant to the article and informative to have verifiable real-world examples), but I agree to restricting it to the most crucial examples. The one by creationists, for example, is a standard argument of them and it is notable and repeated enough by them that it warrants a mention. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I, too, wish to keep the section as it is relevant and helpful to the reader. Of course the examples should be reliably sourced. Binksternet (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think most of these examples should not be here at all. Most of them are just cases of someone making a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, rather than allegations of 'reductio ad Hitlerum' - which they may very well be, but without a source saying so, to include them is original research. Any purported example of this fallacy that does not have a reference describing it as such should not be included in this article. Robofish (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you see how we editors are struggling to try and show good examples of RaH? The section needs to stay in the article so that readers who are less familiar with the concept can see what we've debated and settled upon. Otherwise—if we delete the section—readers will just end up thinking that RaH is just a comparison to Hitler or Nazis. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This section is quite frankly a WP:BLP nightmare. As it stands now, its intent is not to provide simple examples of usage, but to disparage notable and semi-notable figures alike for their rhetorical "OMG NAZI!" utterances. Here's a simple test for whether an entry should stay or go; look at each source and determine who is making the determination that that person's actions/words are an example of ad Hiterum. Does the source make the assertion? Keep, per WP:RS. Was it a Wikipedia editor who looked at the definition and then found a story about someone invoking Hitler in a speech? Delete, per WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. I suspect the section will be vacated in no time. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A cursory check shows that at least the first two occurrences explicitly assert the arguments as ad Hitlerum, and also at least another couple sources that I checked at random. However I endorse Tarc's suggestion of removing examples where sources do not assert explicitly the argument as such, per WP:OR concerns. In any case I see little "BLP nightmare": if occurrences are sourced, there is no "BLP nightmare", there is only an OR concern around them being proper "reductio ad Hitlerum" or not. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And this cavalier attitude is precisely why I place little value on your contributions to anything remotely connected to BLP articles; one bad entry is one too many. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What has this vaguely personal-attack-ish remark to do with the discussion? I am even endorsing your proposal. Come on, we may dislike each other's attitudes, but let's not flame for the sake of it. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Dickson White
White was an early exponent. Writing in the 1890's, when the North had just won the Civil War, he accused his opponents of supporting slavery. He noted that his conservative opponents had previously interpreted the Bible in favour of slavery. See his History, published in 1896, but written over the previous 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.151.112 (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any sources describing this as reduction ad hitlerum?93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Hitler was a bit young in the 1890's, so I doubt that he was committing Reductio ad Hitlerum.76.122.18.47 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so important, but...
Shouldn't be reductio ad hitlerem? "Hitler" ends in -r, so it's 3rd declination, so the accusative is [root]+em... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.103.245.240 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?
Some people (myself) are very passionate about how bad the Nazis are, and this is simply an extension of the Slippery slope argument. (i.e. not fallacious) I think it's a violation of the NPOV policy to say this kind of argument is a fallacy. It's certaily not a logical fallacy, unless all reductio ad absurdum arguments are. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article on Slippery slope identifies it, too, as a fallacy. (Though I would agree it is not always; short slippery slopes can be very real, it's the longer ones you need to be dubious about.) Barnabypage (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article might be a bit excessive.
Is this really a formal logical fallacy, or is it just some phrase that people have used sometimes? I think some of the people's editing of this article has maybe gotten a bit carried away, and there has been some original research. It seems as though this can be split up into either guilt by association or Godwin's law, but is not unique in and of itself. The "History of the Term" section seems to merely be two examples of this term being discussed, with absolutely nothing to do with the history of the term. The statement that Leo Strauss invented the term is only referenced by a link to a summary of his book, which never even mentions the phrase, much less indicates that he coined the term. And the "Allegations of Reductio ad Hitlerum in practice" seems to be entirely examples of people comparing other people to Hitler. This is not Reductio ad Hitlerum, in fact it is not even a logical fallacy just to compare two people. It actually appears that this entire article is based on original research and Reductio ad Reductio ad Hitlerum, whereby every time somebody mentions Hitler is it the deduced that they are committing Reductio ad Hitlerum. I think this entire article should either be scrapped, or at least trimmed down to get rid of the overreach of the article.76.122.18.47 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck
These contrasting examples would seem to perfectly illustrate the fallacy involved. The Stewart clip is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDUr59blyBA (I think March 19/2010?), have not tracked down the original Beck clip. (Easy to find further references: use jon stewart + progressive + cancer.) If you find these examples appropriate and let me know how to properly cite the shows, I can write the section. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.36 (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Black did an even finer job of calling out Beck on this, calling it a case of Nazi Tourette's. Here's a clip from Keith Olberman, containing a clip from Daily Show, containg Beck clips... Beck: "Hitlers enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy: global warming. Now, I'm not calling Al Gore a Nazi...." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk 67.232.140.2 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Update of references
I wanted to update reference [3] because the link is broken, used google and found the article here: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/hitlerstalin.html Tried to edit the page but I feared I would not do it right (first time) so please update it. Es beto (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Examples
Those examples suck. Not one of them is a proper statement of reductio ad hitlerum; the best examples are usually Godwin posts on Usenet discussions, but whatever, the examples given do not illustrate the definition as stated. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The examples are meant to illustrate how to show that any such argument is in fact nonsense. They're not examples of actual reductions ad hitlerums. Please read the article carefully before judging. ~Anonymous


 * No, really, the examples really ARE that bad. Especially the last one. Essentially it is argumented that excessive supervision by the state can easily be misused for malign purposes, and Hitler is a mere example, not part of the reasoning.


 * Anyway, SHOULD the examples not at least be genuine reductios ad hitlerum? Else why are they included in this article anyway? --Stephan, 30th January 2006
 * Yes, they ought to be genuine examples of the reductio ad hitlerum. NickelShoe 19:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The third is a very poor example. It is perfectly valid to cite Hitler's use of excessive supervision there: it's intended to illustrate the way in which ID cards might be misused, not merely taint them by association.--Malcohol 12:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In Watchmen, Rorschach uses reductio ad Hitlerum to insult Ozymandias; after Nite Owl points out that Ozymandias is a vegetarian, Rorschach points out that Hitler was one too. -- LGagnon 16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. In Watchmen Ozymandias actually does kill millions of people, so the comment is entirely valid. I think Alan Moore was one step ahead there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reincarnationfish (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that was exact RAH. Nite Owl cites Ozymadias' vegetarianism (I think I remember) as some sort of proof of being a moral person. Rorschach's point being: Ozy is a vegetarian. Nite owl connects vegetarianism with morality. Ozy is a good person, according to Nite Owl. However, Hitler is a vegetarian. Hitler is a bad person. Therefore, vegetarianism it not necessarily the cause of, nor caused by, or intrisically related to being a good person, in and of itself. Whew logic is fun. Of course we could go crazy on semantics and subjectivity there, but that's Rorshach's problem, not mine :P Mr.troughton (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic relevance fallacy. So X does Y, and Z also does Y. X and Z also do A. But that doesn't mean that X is evil because Z is. 69.166.47.143 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples suck. The 'Equating Israelis with Nazis' example unwittingly contains an ad hitlerum itself in suggesting that Arabs and Palestinians were nazis. IMHO, there are some major POV issues with this example. Hitler and gun control or the Hitler-Bush comparison would be better, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.225.117 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See here. --GHcool (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a Reductio ad Hitlerum as well? In the same way it says in respect to equating isreal with the nazis: "Europeans use it to shift the focus away from the crimes of the Holocaust they committed in their own past to the crimes that their past victims (Jews) are alledgelly committing in the present."- firstly, all europeans comitted crimes against the jews in the holocaust? and because of that they are framing the "alledged" (as if they were not real: ) it's plain nonsense, most of the countries in Europe were the ENEMIES of the axis. In my opinion, the article needs an urgent rewrite. Blatant POV can be found everywhere.--190.174.96.222 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The examples ARE terrible. Think of it this way, what if you didn't know why Hitler was bad? Then you'd have to say, "You're a Vegetarian? Well, Hitler was a vegetarian and he rounded up people based on their race and put them into a concentration camp and then systematically murdered them, so vegetarianism is evil." Now compare this one "Israel is rounding up people based on their race and putting them in concentrations camps (put aside whether this is true or not, this is a question of logic). Well, Hitler rounded up people based on their race and put them into a concentration camp and he rounded up people based on their race and put them into a concentration camp and then systematically murdered them, so rounding up people based on their race and putting them in concentrations camps is evil." The first is absurd, the second is tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.187.231 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It still makes the argument, unsigned, because you have no other reason why rounding up people based on their race and putting them in concentration camps is evil. Your only argument is that Hitler did it. 69.166.47.143 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And see, I see that Israeli example as just falling short of RAH. For the point is not that the Israeli are necessarily LIKE Hitler, and therefore wrong in what they do. It reads to me that due to the Jewish history of suffering through such inhumane treatments, it is ironic, sad, interesting (whatever the author felt, I'd neeed to read more, but-) that Israeli, largely Jewish, would not sympathize with their captured and not treat prisoners as their forefathers had been, and not recycle that pain onto others. I'm going to remove this example, as I feel it is not relevant. Please don't be rude if you disagree, I don't mind changing it back if I'm found wrong. I just find people get so nasty on Wikipedia. Makes me sad :( Mr.troughton (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What about Bill O'Reilly's criticism of atheism by citing that Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists in his interview with Richard Dawkins? It fits the examples used in the preceding sections quite well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.202.166 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reductio ad Talibanum
At least in Sweden there are a number of taliban similes similar to the "Reduction ad Hitlerum". I propose everybody keeps their ears widely open. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgot to say: a Reductio ad Talibanum is then just a special case of RaH. I don't propose creating a new article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reductio ad Hiterum can be used to associate an arguement to any "evil" group to impose negative connotations. I think there should simply be a mention that Hitler is not the only possible associate used in Reductio as Hiterum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.32.42 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"And will therefore cause mass genocide"
Throughout, it is stated that using RAH argument is to say that "Hiter was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is wrong as it will lead to mass genocide". I believe this is over specific, as not as cases of RAH specifically reference genocide or even death. Many instances mean to vilify authoritarianism, racism, etc. and not all of these logically follow into genocide. I would like to edit this to more accurately reflect that RAH refers to a more general comparisson of the subject with Hitler's qualities, than the subject with Hitler as a mass murder. I think this is sound, and will do so until reversion, whereupon we can discuss other lines of reasoning on the subject. Peace and love. Mr.troughton (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Kay it was only actually once. Mr.troughton (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics
''A common example of the fallacy in action is the following: "The Nazis favored eugenics, therefore eugenics is wrong."[1][2] However, the ethical debate over eugenics is not directly connected with Hitler or the Nazis in particular. Both eugenics and criticism of it considerably predate both Hitler and the Nazi party.''

I'm not sure this is an especially clear example of a logical fallacy, although obviously the statement in quotes is problematic. In large part, the crimes of the Nazi regime were intimately connected with eugenic justifications, so their example is hardly irrelevant to a discussion of the ethics of eugenics. On the contrary, the Holocaust is a prime example of how eugenic beliefs can be used to justify terrible crimes.

To be more clear, what about using a statement like "Policy X has been rationalized by 'eugenic' ideas as the Holocaust was, so policy X is wrong". Or, what about using a policy of the Nazi regime less directly connected with the Holocaust, e.g. "The Nazis had 'socialist' economic policies, so 'socialist' idea X is wrong".--Eloil (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Seing the extensive length of the article eugenics on wikipedia i fear that it is a theme which probably has some kind of closet racist ideology behind it, and i fear it will also leak onto this page. Eugenetics follows from Darwins theories, and the extreme application of those theories is the holocaust. To claim it is a reudctio ad hitlerum is the same as to say that the hitler jugend where just boyscouts. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Resemblance to Judaism
I recently found an argument which goes like this: "see how they build a satanic myth and a concept of an enemy around Monsanto agricultural industries. Isn't this just like the anti-judaism around 1900?" I found the argument here: I'd day in a wider sense this is a fallacy of the Hitler type in companion with an ordinary ad hominem. Or what is this fallacy called? "There once was a lie about something, so this here is presumably also a lie." (I am not a friend of Monsanto.) Bierbauchangsthase (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't think it is related. A. Ward (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed origin - Hutchins or Strauss?
Someone's updated the article to say that the term was actually coined two years earlier in an article "written by Robert Maynard Hutchins". Although the given Google Book search source does indeed include the phrase fragment, the fact that it uses the exact same words as the quotation given from Strauss's 1953 book is striking. Is it possible that Hutchins' publication was simply a collection of essays, including one written by Strauss which Strauss later included in a book of his own? --McGeddon (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I did put the Hutchins reference in the article. But I do only have the Google Books extract, and no access to to the 1951 paper document. Somebody with an easier access to the US paper (I'm based in France, and not near the National Library that may have a copy) could maybe check the document.
 * Brgds, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.126.117.69 (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So, I found the explanation, you were right McGeddon: in fact Leo Strauss did publish his work with a reference to the "Reductio ad Hitlerum" in "Measure: a critivcal review." as soon as 1951. And Hutchins was only the main editor of that item. I will correct the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.126.117.69 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, good to know that the original article here wasn't too inaccurate, then. Thanks for checking. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri
Is his entry here trivial and/or unsupportable by its references? Take a look at Rajendra K. Pachauri's recent history. The action starts with my edit at 22:57, 18 February 2012. You can then follow the defenders' logic and my replies. Note this editor's assertion that the National Review, ABC news, and The Guardian are not "of the reliability required to make such claims". (The story ends for the moment here.) It seems to me that if his mention in this article is non-trivial and supportable, then it should be the same in his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 February 2012‎
 * Yes, the entry seems pretty unsupportable here. We should only be highlighting examples of a "fallacy of irrelevance" when a documented third party has specifically called someone out for that. We shouldn't be digging out Nazi comparisons and labelling them as reductio ad Hitlerum fallacies based on our own interpretation of the context. I'll clear out the list. --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You didn't go far enough. I've deleted the entire Section. Anyone can Google the phrase to find actual usages. With the exception of the Kristallnacht reference, none of the deleted references made specific reference to reductio ad Hitlerum that I could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 February 2012‎
 * And I think you went too far; I've restored the Bernstein reference which you already regard as an exception, and also the Beck example, which refers directly to the fallacy where "an opponent's view is compared to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party", making it relevant to the article, even if it doesn't use the exact reductio term. An interested reader shouldn't have to research their own examples. --McGeddon (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * More such examples seem to have crept into the section. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this count as an example too?
When people say things like 'the Nazis were just following orders too!' (in reference to the Holocaust) when one is in a situation where one's paid employment involves making another person unhappy for one reason or another, and the phrase 'I'm just doing my job' is uttered in response to a tirade of abuse - often in jobs that have something to do with insisting that people pay their debts, preventing people from being antisocial or refusing them free stuff in my experience... :) Should this sort of thing be mentioned in the article, do you think? --87.115.78.105 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Weak example. It is ideologically loaded. "Just following orders" applies to someone doing something brutal (such as a massacre or an enslavement) to a class of helpless people or destruction of freedom of thought (as in burning books or musical scores for their content or creator). Everybody has a job to do, and unless one's job is exclusively the manipulation of objects as labor, one has responsibilities to step on some toes. A preacher has the right (and duty) to tell a Satanist that a church cannot be used for Satanic rituals. A teacher has the right and duty to insist that kids not to use profanity or threatening language. Any boss has the expected duty to deterring his subordinates from slacking off.

Civilization itself depends upon the enforcement of expectations. Brutality such as the Atlantic Slave Trade or the Holocaust also tears at the fundamental decencies of human behavior that underpin civilization. So does the destruction of the products of intellectual creativity solely because those items (books, artwork, music) offend the sensibilities of the political leadership of the day. Pbrower2a (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You would need a source that identifies the comment as a reductio ad hitlerum. The point of the Nuremburg defense is that a public servant or soldier is responsible for their crimes even if carried out on the orders of a superior, not that one should refuse orders that are distasteful, which itself would normally be considered a crime.  TFD (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)