Talk:Argumentum ad crumenam

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

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

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

Would this (Argumentum ad crumenam) be the same as "Millions Of People Can't Be Wrong"?

No; that would be Argumentum ad populum -DasRakel (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007-01-31 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

These are both puny articles about appealing to a person's level of wealth. Let's at least merge them into one. Richard001 (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. It is really unsatifsfying to read such stubs. Leaving redirect in place will make the information just as easy to find, but put it in better context.Yobmod (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argumentum ad crumenam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701205104/http://education.gsu.edu:80/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm to http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Solely?[edit]

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

I don't think so. If I conclude that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich and old, it is still ad crumenam. Even if I conclude that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich and his reasoning is sound, it is still ad crumenam. Are there any sources for the "solely"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sources forthcoming, so I removed it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]