Talk:Straw man/Archive 1

In literature

I haven't changed the literary discussion here yet, but I raise the question whether Heinrich Mann's novel Der Untertan should be included. Straw Man is a highly questionable translation for the title and scholars have long noted the problem of not having a way of expressing Untertan in English. I would suggest that literary references are not necessary at all, since straw man is, indeed, a device of rhetoric & argument. -- Dottore So 11 May 2005

Sorry, Dr. S., I forgot about this. My take on this was that the section (which I authored) should stay, but there should be a footnote qualifying the the German-English discrapencies. As I also said, this is how the Mann's book is titiled in English, it is notable through that name and corresponding associations. Moreover, we can forget the footnote and add a paragraph discussing this, and from it, link to a whole article devoted to the Untertan issue. I believe Dr. S. when s/he states that: scholars have long noted the problem of not having a way of expressing Untertan in English.. Certainly article worthy then, as is an in-depth article on Mann's aforementioned famous book (and/or trilogy). We just need someone to author these. As per the former, I'm afraid my grasp of German is far too dismal for me to attempt such an undertaking. My apologies again for neglecting to check this talk page for your comment, Dr. S., it slipped my mind. Regards, El_C 04:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As discussed I have created a page proper for Der Untertan and linked to it from here. Content is a fusion from the German article, the original entry here and a few thoughts of my own.Dottore So 17:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Rhetorical use

I removed "Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted. " This is not a strawman. I can find no authoritative definition to support this. Ignoring the rest of someones argument is not a strawman. Im removing #1 again. None of my logic textbooks mention anything resembling this as a proper strawman. -JJ

I did a copy edit today of the "Rhetorical use" section and deleted a couple of points. First, I deleted the example of the straw-man argument that involved Darwin advocating acquired characteristics. I'm not aware that he ever did this. Second, I deleted the Fred-Alice exchange, because they were not (quite) examples of straw-man arguments. I also deleted "sometimes known as straw-person arguments" because I don't believe they are ever called that. If anyone disagrees, or if I'm wrong about Darwin (particularly that), please let me know. Slim 08:56, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's not well-known, but yes, in The Origin of Species Darwin did include speculation that acquired characteristics could be inherited by future generations. I got marked down on a book report for Biology because I had actually read the book and read for myself that Darwin wrote of these things; the teacher had not read the book himself and he thought I was simply confusing what we now call Darwinian evolution with Lamarckian evolution. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you happen to know where in the book it is, so I can look it up? I've never before heard that Darwin toyed with acquired characteristics. I always thought he had consistently argued quite the opposite. My apologies. Slim 17:32, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well, Lamarckian inheritance is a completely logical theory; it just happens to be incorrect. Darwin proposed both Lamarckian and "Darwinian" inheritance in Origin; he may have realized later that Lamarckian was incorrect and argued against it, or it may just be that his incorrect theory was forgotten because his correct one was more impressive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should add: please don't go to any trouble, because I can look for it myself. Best, Slim 17:38, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Splitting off Rhetorical into its own article

I have deleted the Rhetorical section and instead created a whole new article for it, It doesn't seem to make much sense to have them in the same article sense they are completly different and there is enough content for two seperate article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this was as good an idea as it seemed. There may be enough content for two articles, yes, but I don't think there was enough content to require two articles. A look at the "What links here" for this page seems to suggest that an overwhelming majority of the incoming links are intending to link to "straw man" in its sense of "straw man argument". Even if we agreed to manually redirect all such current links to "Straw-Man Argument", people are still going to put brackets around "straw man" intending to create a link to the article that describes straw man arguments. Unless a very good argument indeed can be proposed for the separation that has been made, I propose to reunite the articles a few days from now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How about we direct straw man to the other article then add a short disambiguation at the top of that article. I just think that the meanings are so different from each other that it is almost comical to read about them in the same article. But yes I would agree that the normal link should be towards the other article, I just don't think it is good idea to have them in the same page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggested solution, but I don't think the "problem" you're trying to solve is as bad as any of the proposed solutions, including the one that was implemented first. Having multiple, unconnected meanings of the same term explained in the same article is, at worst, slightly messy. The consequence of moving the most often used usage of the term to a new location is worse than that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting having the "straw man" link to the new article then have somthing on the top of the page like is in this article Viper. It's a pretty small problem though so if it really bothers you, then revert to the original before I touched it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am supportive of this article being split off into its own article. (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Invitation

Work is currently in progress on a page entitled Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared. Also currently being worked upon is Wikipedia: NPOV (Comparison of views in science) giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for NPOV in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting.  :) Barnaby dawson 21:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doubt

I do not believe the story under law about straw men with straw in their shoes. It should be supported by a plausible reference or removed.

I completely agree. --Avi 16:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page, with links to the various uses of the word? While the words may be related, a lot of these are completely different concepts. Apologies if this has been discussed to death, etc.

Reference: http://www.bartleby.com/81/10919.html E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.

"Man of Straw (A).

A person without capital. It used to be customary for a number of worthless fellows to loiter about our law-courts to become false witness or surety for anyone who would buy their services; their badge was a straw in their shoes."Jodi.a.schneider 11:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Self promotion"

I'd like to clear up the situation with the last edit. I was not self-promoting myself there. That was someone else from a message board who was trying to make me look bad. I apologize for the fact that he has vandalised the article as part of his vendetta against me. I'd like to point out that I never edit anonymously, and you can rest assured that I will not directly cause any problems for Wikipedia. -- LGagnon July 8, 2005 05:08 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Oddly, that's weirdly reassuring, that it was someone vandalizing Wikipedia because they knew it would be recognized as not cool, rather than someone doing it because they really did think it made them cool to do it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Straw Man Fallacy Redirection

While I can see the irony and found it quite humerous to be redirected to this page when actually searching for 'Straw Man Fallacy', this is an incorrect redirection and should be corrected to redirect to 'Straw Man Argument'.

Woops. Straw man argument comes here too. I've takent he liberty of covering the straw man fallacy here. I think it probably deserves its own article though.

I know that's what I've been trying to say, Not only should it have a different article but it should be the main one instead of the various meanings of the term on this page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. You have to admit the irony tho? =) Anyway I did finally manage to find the article on the straw man fallacy. I is here Straw-Man Argument

Good to see this has been corrected. Is it possible to change the redirect so that 'Straw Man Fallacy' is directed to the Straw-man argument page?

I've merged Straw-man argument back to straw man, as it was before. As I pointed out previously, the incoming links to straw man clearly indicate that most people who link "straw man" do so under the impression that they are linking to a page that explains the rhetorical technique/logical fallacy. I think the fact that within two days of splitting off the rhetorical/fallacious usage from this article, someone rewrote the section because they noticed it was 'missing' demonstrates that quite clearly. Therefore, of all the usages of the term that we could spin out into a separate article, that usage should be the last we would choose to do it with.

However, may I point out that there has been no case made that we actually need to spin out any usage of the term to a separate article. It's not needed on the basis of size, surely; the only scenario I can picture which would indicate some need for spinouts would be where someone comes to the article looking for a specific meaning of the term, skims the beginning of the article, and erroneously concludes that because some other meaning is described there, the one they're looking for must not be in the article. The better solution to this, I think, is to give the article an intro which makes it clear that the article covers many meanings, and I have tried to give the article such an intro. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that the my reasoning for making this into two different articles was the vastly different definitions. It seems silly that a straw man fallacy and a straw man rodeo dummy should be in the same article, and apparently some other people support me on this.

However, as I have said before I do agree with you that most people that link to this article do so under the impression that it explains the rhetorical technique/logical fallacy. I find your continuing intransigence on this matter increasingly vexing in light of the fact that I have repeatedly explained my reasoning, and other people have agreed. As this argument is beginning to look counterproductive, perhaps we could put this to a vote, do you agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You said "I thought I made it clear that the my reasoning for making this into two different articles was the vastly different definitions.". It sounds like you're accusing him of using a straw man argument =).

Seriously though, I agree to the vote and will back up your comments. I only found this article through a redirect from Straw man fallacy and when I got here the article didn't mention anything about the straw man fallacy. Straw man Fallacy could actually be a fairly large article once we've added examples of the various types of straw man arguments from various sources.

Moshe, I think you need to step back and try to take a closer look at what people are actually saying. You are claiming "this is the problem I saw; this is the solution I unilaterally chose; these are the people who agree with me, since they said they saw a problem too." But the fact is, however, that two people have commented on this issue, and I can't comment on one, but the other is protesting the problem caused by your "solution"' -- the fact that when he went to Straw man looking for information on the straw man fallacy/rhetorical technique, he didn't find it. Why didn't he find it? Because you had moved it! And he felt so strongly that it was incorrect that he "took the liberty of covering the straw man fallacy here" [1] -- so for you to claim that "other people have agreed" without mentioning that at least half of them fully disagreed is, at best, a distorted view.

Now, you seem to think that it's a problem when an article title describes several subjects that are all legitimately referred to by that title but which happen to be fairly different from each other. I, personally, don't see what the problem is there; I already outlined that the worst problem that can be caused by that situation is easily fixed with a clear intro. And I already explained that moving the meaning that 90-95% of incoming links are trying to reference when the editor types [[straw man]] is a bad idea. You think that having unconnected topics which are all referred to in the real world as "straw men" all in the article straw man is "silly". Even if that's so, "silly" is better than "poor functionality".

"I'm suggesting having the "straw man" link to the new article then have somthing on the top of the page like is in this article Viper." It's called disambiguation; if you go to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, you'll see various methods of disambiguation. One I guarantee you won't find is moving the primary topic of a title to a separate article, and I don't even think you'll find a recommendation that disambiguation decisions be made on the basis of disparate topics under a single title being "silly". No, what you'll find at Wikipedia:Disambiguation is recommendations for how to use disambiguation to keep Wikipedia easy to navigate. I wish you would try to apply that standard here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am really beginning to become frustrated with you Antaeus. You state- "One I guarantee you won't find is moving the primary topic of a title to a separate article" I have made it clear multiple times that this is not at all what I am suggesting. I am saying the "primary topic" should be the primary link and have all the secondary topics be in the disambiguation page.

"I have made it clear multiple times that this is not at all what I am suggesting." It's what you did! How do you not realize this? You came to a page called "straw man"; you found several meanings for the phrase "straw man"; if you had checked "What links here" you would have found that nearly all incoming links were trying to reference 'straw man' in the rhetorical/fallacy sense; and out of all the meanings of "straw man" you chose to move to a different article, you chose that one! Honestly, you think you're getting frustrated? I'm sitting here stunned, trying to figure out how in hell you can say "I never suggested we do that" in response to a description of what you already did!

You go on to say- "It's called disambiguation; if you go to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, you'll see various methods of disambiguation". I find it funny that you were pedantic here, I am quite familar with wikipedia, The only reason I didn't call it disambiguation is because in the previous post when I did use the word you seemed confused.

Not only have you decided to take up a condencending tone throughout this entire argument, but you have confused or misinterpreted every one of my posts and it seems you have misinterpreted other peoples's posts as well.

No, I wasn't confused by the word "disambiguation", I was confused by your unclear sentence "How about we direct straw man to the other article then add a short disambiguation at the top of that article." What do you mean by "direct straw man to the other article"? Which article are you calling "the other article"? Is "the other article" the same as "that article"? I have no idea what you're proposing and after watching you fail to recognize what you already did when it's described to you I'm not too certain you do either. I mean, it's very clear that "It's a pretty small problem though so if it really bothers you, then revert to the original before I touched it" does not mean what any ordinary person would assume it does, since you're now sniping that now it should be put to a vote and that I don't understand how people who tried to replace the "missing" material that you moved out of this article were actually somehow expressing support for your decision to remove it from this article in the first place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting dicussion. Since this seems largely to be an issue of organisation, I suggest that some kind of consensus be achieved on this page before further redirects/excisions are made (using peer review if necessary to get wider feedback) and tempers flare.

That said, imo I don't think that a new article is required, since most of what is here outside of the fallacy/argument aspects of the use of Straw Man verges on dictionary definitions. Since the use of straw man to describe an argument or a fallacy is linked, it makes sense to bring them together on the same page. Certainly, I am in agreement with Antaeus - these are by far the most common uses of straw man, hence these discussions belong here at the principal page, with appropriate redirects as necessary. The references to the straw man in rodeos, literature, etc... could thus be consigned to an other uses section or some such. Dottore So 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you found a couple of sentences which weren't very clear, That MUST mean you're smarter than me. Wait weren't there a couple other sentences or something? No.. You must have had a good reason to not understand them either. Give me a break. The other person that I "claimed" to support me was not doing so because he was confused by my edits, it was because he also thought it was strange that all the meanings were on the same page. This argument tires me, I am tired of trying to explain a viewpoint, that is not radical in the least, to someone who is incredibly rude and stubborn.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that within two days of splitting off the rhetorical/fallacious usage from this article, someone rewrote the section because they noticed it was 'missing' demonstrates that quite clearly. Well you certainly seem to be familiar with the straw man fallacy. You use it a lot! I didn't find this article by typeing 'Straw Man' and expecting to find info on the straw man fallacy. What I did is type 'Straw Man Fallacy' and was very surprised when I ended up in an article describing rodeo dummies et al! Straw Man Fallacy/argument deserves its own article. Jebus Christ (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be, I suppose, why you added information about the straw man fallacy to the article with the rodeo dummies rather than to Straw Man Fallacy?

No actually. It was because the straw-man argument (which is where the redirect should have taken me) had a hiphen between straw and man and I didn't find it until after writing the article. I wasn't aware of its existence. In addition, I didn't and still don't know how to start a new article on a topic that has a redirect imposed on it. I don't know how to start an article entitled Straw Man Fallacy. Or I would have done that.

The fact is that you found "straw man", saw that it had no information on the straw man fallacy, decided it should have some, and included that.

Did you not read anything I wrote? I found staw man via a redirect from Straw Man Fallacy! I would never have thought to look for a logical fallacy listed under the title 'Straw Man'. Every other defined logical fallacy has its own page!

The fact that you later changed your mind, I'm afraid, doesn't change what anyone can verify by clicking "what links here" -- people put brackets around "straw man" to reference the straw man argument/fallacy.

I didn't later change my mind. I always thought the layout of this article was completely inconsistent with other wikipedia articles and idiotic quite frankly! This is nothing that can't be fixed by some method of disambiguation.

Oh, you "always" did? How long has that "always" been? I thought you just found it the other day. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if we agreed amongst ourselves to move that sense of the word to its own article and manually redirect all the incoming links that are now pointing to the wrong place, people would still expect to find the straw man fallacy at straw man and would create links accordingly.

Again, this can be sorted via a disambig page or by using the idea posted earlier to make the straw man article the one relating to the logical fallacy.

Yes, I considered that as a possible solution. It's the one I would support, except that disambiguation pages are for situations where the title "Foo" has multiple meanings which have or which could support their own articles, and the two styles used for such situations are either: give every subject its own article linked from a disambiguation page at "Foo"; or, if one meaning is clearly the predominant meaning, have that article at "Foo" and have it link at the top to "Foo (disambiguation)", which of course links to all the other articles. It's that "which have or which could support their own articles" that's the obstacle. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Which means that the major effect of our change would be to impede linking and navigation, which is too high a price to pay just so that people don't have to have information about metaphorical straw men and literal straw men in the same article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't listen to reason do you? I intend to write a full straw man fallacy article. I'm going to use segements from your part of this debate as examples!

Thank you for announcing your intention to employ original research; it will be a good thing to mention in the AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

From the same page... Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. =) Factoid Killer 01:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Intriguing. Be sure to mention in the AfD (and the possible ensuing RfC) just how and when I became a primary source. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well we all know why you want the straw man fallacy hidden away in an ambiguous article. It's a technique you like to use yourself and you've just used it again. Nothing I wrote suggested i'd be using you as a primary source. Factoid Killer 03:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw Man Argument

I don't understand why my search for Straw Man Argument has brought me to this page. Why isn't there a specific page for this? If nobody comes back with any reason in 2 days i'm going to make the Straw Man Argument article Factoid Killer 23:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe once you have more than 19 edits contributed over a day and a half you might also have enough perspective on Wikipedia to understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Great. Now I do. Still don't understand why every other logical fallacy has its own page and this one doesn't. Also don't understand why your, clearly unpopular, opinion should account for so much here.Factoid Killer 12:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I also ended up at this article. Why is there no disambiguation page? NSWelshman 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe once you have more than 26 edits contributed over a span less than eight hours you'll have enough perspective on Wikipedia to understand. I suggest Wikipedia:Sockpuppets as a place to begin your research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I also do not understand why this page doesn't have a disambiguation page. On the other hand, the fact that it's missing seems like a very very tiny problem! User:avl

Does this make sense?

The first sentence in this article is: "A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers"

Shouldn't it be "A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument that an opponent actually offers."?

I may be reading it wrong but than doesnt seem right in the sentence. I would also go ahead and delete actually, as it is not necesary to include the word in the sentence. could anyone tell me why it should be than? iamorlando

It really is "than". Using "that" in the sentence makes the claim that the argument being refuted actually is an argument from the opponent -- but in the most common form of the straw man fallacy, that's exactly what isn't true. For instance:

JIM: I think Jack Morley is our best choice for governor because he's got a much better record of leadership than any of the other candidates.

BOB: Oh, yeah? Well, back in 1993, Morley supported subsidies to build more public transit, saying the state would benefit -- except the transit company was skimming off the top! So much for your "perfect" Jack Morley!

Note that Bob is refuting an argument that Jim didn't make: the idea that Jack Morley is "perfect". Jim said that Morley had a much better record of leadership than the other candidates, which isn't instantly refuted by pointing at one bad decision. However, Bob is (perhaps deliberately) acting as if Jim had argued that Morley was "perfect", and citing a mistake of Morley's to show his imperfection. Bob is not refuting a weaker argument that Jim offered; he's ignoring Jim's actual argument, and refuting a weaker argument than Jim offered.

Hope that clears things up! -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I finally get it now, its crystal clear. iamorlando 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambig?

It looks like this has been discussed before without consensus, so I'm going to bring it up again. Simply put, it doesn't make much sense to have two very different usages of this term put together in one article.

I propose that we change Straw Man into a disambiguation page, and break out Straw Man Argument and Straw Man (literal) into their own articles.

I would happy to do this and I would fix all the links coming here at the same time so they are directed correctly. Does anybody have any objections to this approach? -- MisterHand 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I support a diambiguation. I arrived as a technical user of (the word) strawman (a starter item which is built up to better item by getting comment, occasionally containing outrageous features to promote comments for betterment) and now know of the (new to me) idea that it is a (fallacious) way of knocking something. Yes diambiguation or at least clarity of the cleaved idea. --PhilipOakley 22:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You will get the usual objections from 1 person. Everyone else who comes here proposes the same thing you just did. I support your change. Please go ahead and make it. Factoid Killer 00:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Factoid Killer. You never do want to grow up, do you? I mean, you really made yourself look like an utter fool when you tried to blame me for moving everything about "straw man argument" out of Straw man and I was actually the one who fixed that situation. Now you want to demonstrate for all the world that you haven't learned anything from your blunder. Go ahead, if your ego is really that fragile, but remember that every time you make your petty little insinuations about '1 person' whose ideas are always so wrong-headed, I will remind everyone that you couldn't even correctly remember what those ideas were. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I second that. This current state of this article is a stain in the face of wikipedian standards. Factoid Killer 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly dissecond it for the same reasons as before -- a look at "What links here" shows that overwhelmingly when people link the words "straw man" they do so to reference straw man arguments. Even if you are willing to go through all the current links and fix them all manually, what people have already done is a good guide to what they're going to do in the future. It makes very little sense to take a page which easily 90% of the links to are trying to get one specific meaning of the term and say "okay, we're going to move that meaning somewhere else." Now, what would make more sense would be to say "okay, let's keep 'straw man argument' at straw man], and create a disambiguation page for the other, less-used meanings", but in this case there are still problems with that approach, because the other meanings are either so slight that it's not possible to justify a separate article (such as "straw man proposal" -- what can it be but a dictdef?) or so tied with straw men in the literal sense (such as the not-inconsiderable section on straw men in literature) that it makes no sense to separate them. I only wish I had seen this proposal mooted in time to oppose it; I was down for a few days with a bad cold and somehow missed this in my catch-up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi there. I saw that you moved the article back halfway through my work to disambig everything, so instead of turning this article into a disambiguation page, I left it with the main meaning and created Straw man (disambiguation) for everything else. Sorry about the crossed wires, I hope the current version is more acceptable than my original proposal...
    • Yeah, I'm sorry about the crossed wires. =/ For reasons I explained above, I'm not sure splitting all the other meanings of straw man into their own articles is the best idea, but it's one I can live with. (Which moving the most frequently-used meaning of the phrase to a different title wouldn't have been...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • The good news is that everything's in history, so if its decided that some or all of the articles belong back here it'll be easy to undo. -- MisterHand 04:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Hand, you're not the first person to make this suggestion. In fact you're about the tenth. When I first found this page it didn't even have a section relating to the logical fallacy. I created it myself before realising it had been recently deleted by Feldspar. Feldspar holds an unpopular opinion but s/he seems to have way more time on his/her/its hands than the rest of us and thus has managed to maintain this page in its ridiculous format for quite some time. Good luck in your endevours and I will support you as much as a person with a life and a career can. Factoid Killer 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Factoid Killer! Now I know how you got your name: you hate sticking to the facts, and wish you could kill them. That, after all, explains why you're telling here what anyone can check for themselves and see is a blatant lie. "When I first found this page it didn't even have a section relating to the logical fallacy. I created it myself before realising it had been recently deleted by Feldspar." Nice try, you liar! But as anyone can check for themselves, it was Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs), who in this edit, moved everything this article had on the most frequently employed use of the phrase to create the article "Straw-Man Argument". A move, may I remind you, that I opposed and fixed. And now you have the nerve to rewrite history and pretend that I "deleted" the section on the rhetorical fallacy? Well, Factoid Killer, you make such a big deal out of having "a life and a career" -- well, hopefully your claim to have a career isn't a big fat lie too, but since huge lies seem to be what you specialize in... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Fixed the edit" thats a good one, the reason I created that article was because at the time I didn't know how to make page moves or a lot of other stuff, but even with those old mistakes it was still preferable to the ridiculous and impractical version that you would not allow anyone to change for god knows what reason.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that feldspar likes to use logical fallacy a lot whilst arguing and it is my belief that the strawman is one of his favourite arguing techniques. This is why I think he feels the need to ambiguate it as much as possible if not remove it completely. Factoid Killer 00:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to express to Factoid Killer exactly what I think of his shitty lying but instead I'll just remind people that they can check the history for themselves and see exactly what a scumbag liar he is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Now, see, if Factoid Killer wasn't a scumbag with no sense of morality, he would apologize for his completely false accusation that I ever "deleted" the section of the article relating to the straw man fallacy, when trying to keep that sense of the phrase, the most frequently intended meaning of phrase, at the article straw man is exactly what I've been trying to do all along. But of course, since he's the sort of scumbag who'd tell that kind of lie to begin with, he'll find some bullshit reason why he shouldn't have to apologize for his lies. Just watch.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes I was wrong to accuse you of being the one to delete the article. I was confused when I came here as i'd searched for 'straw man fallacy' and when I arrived had found an article about scarecrows. I apologise for accusing you of deleting the article. I don't however apologise for accusing you of making fallacious arguments and attempting to keep the article from being disambiguated despite being outvoted on the subject. Factoid Killer 04:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take your analysis of how "fallacious" my arguments were with all the seriousness appropriate for someone who couldn't even remember which side of the argument my arguments were for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That one was called Ad Hominem. Factoid Killer 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

False. "Ad hominem" would be if I suggested your arguments were wrong because of personal traits that you have which have nothing to do with your argumentation. The fact that you can't actually correctly remember what my arguments were, and falsely attribute to me actions that I spoke against, is indeed very relevant to judging the reliability of any claims or arguments you put forth. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually Antaeus, ad hominem would be to call you a weirdo who is oddly protective over a highly-specific pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hannity And Colmes

Is that really needed? This device isn't mentioned in that article at all. - Anthraxdude88

Not it isn't. I've removed it along with your non-NPov tag (which I assume you added due to the dodgy link) Factoid Killer 20:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was added because of Hannity's constant use of the Straw man argument... --Ryajinor 20:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Uses in pop culture

I've moved the following section here:

Often, the straw man fallacy is used in political cartoons, and television programs to mock or criticize political, philisophical, religious, or cultural views. Examples include Stephen Colbert, who presents an extremely conservative view in order to criticize it.

This paragraph describes Satire, not the straw man argument. -- MisterHand 17:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Race, intelligence and straw

Some famous evolution writer attributed views about the immutability of intelligence and the inherent intellectual inferiority of blacks to the authors of The Bell Curve. The revised edition of his book even promised to refute the Bell Curve authors' views. This is the most famous (or widely accepted?) straw man I know of. --Uncle Ed 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." Asserting your personal opinion that "some famous evolution writer" engaged in straw man argumentation against the authors of The Bell Curve would be engaging in debate at The Bell Curve. Why do you think it would be less so at straw man? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Examples using inflammatory topics

The current example on immigration is not at all neutral. Depending on your political beliefs and the social context, it is yet to be proven if anti-immigration is merely a socially acceptable form of racism. I would encourage that this example be replaced with one that doesn't try to pick an inflammatory topic, or to just delete it.Editorinfinity 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Deleting for the time being. — Alan^✉ 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing could be said for the abortion example. Exanples used should not be in any way political. Odd that whoever wrote that section would use abortion and immigration as the examples. Am deleting it as well, will replace with better less inflammatory example soon.Randomalias (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Current examples are just as one-sided; all three fall squarely on the liberal side of the political spectrum (in the US, at least). The Jade Knight (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw dog

This is a very unusual expression and we should be wary of it. "Straw dog fallacy" gets three hits on Google. "Straw dog" alone gets more but they're mixed in with entirely different meanings, so it's hard to judge how many are relevant. I'm also finding sources who say a straw dog is not the same as a straw man, but is where a straw man argument turns out inadvertently to be correct and relevant. I have no idea whether this is correct. I'd never heard of a straw dog fallacy except in this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the link in the article (see [2] -- there is at least one philosophy prof who uses it. I first heard it ten years ago as, I suspect, a PC way to say "straw man argument". Homey 00:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I always suspected that the use of "straw dog" was confined to those who had gotten the logic term confused with the film Straw Dogs. No philosophy professor I know uses it (and I know plenty); the person in the above-referenced link is either very unusual or is trying to accommodate the mistaken usage. I have never seen it printed in any logic textbook; those that wish to avoid gendered language typically use "straw person." I think that the term should be tagged as possibly erroneous, or at least as unusual. 68.255.60.58 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply finding an example of people using a statement is not sufficient to prove that it is in notable use. You need to find someone discussing the use of the phrase, as I did with "straw person." PStrait 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding Ben Stein quote

I've noticed that while this page does provide a consise and clear definition of what a straw man argument is, it doesn't provide an example. I think that in the case of this term, it would be far more clear to the reader how this type of argument works if an example were provided. In particular, I think an excellent example would be Ben Stein's response to criticisms of the Bush administration's handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster[3], in which he says such things as this:

"George Bush did not cause the hurricane. Hurricanes have been happening for eons. George Bush did not create them or unleash this one."

Obviously some people will argue that this this is a case of POV against Ben Stein, which is why I'm posting this on the talk page before making what might be a controversial change. However, I think that most people, regardless of how they feel about Stein's political leanings, will agree that this is an outstanding case of someone using the straw man argument. He is clearly refuting statements which no party had made, in an attempt to villify and mock the opposition.

Rodeosmurf 22:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent example, and really helps the reader understand a straw man. I will include it. Malamockq 14:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, but your case is weakened somewhat by Stein's later assertion that "George Bush had nothing to do with the hurricane contingency plans for New Orleans," which is a perfectly supportable statement. (Which I'm not arguing for or against, by the way.) --Graham^talk/mail/e 16:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole argument doesn't have to all be straw men, but just a single statement. The statement in question is the straw man. Malamockq 13:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed in general to using political examples. It should not be difficult to come up with a made-up or literary example, so needlessly including POV examples smacks of editorial bias. I think this is a weak example in any case, because it appears to me that Stein was being satirical (e.g., attributing a ridiculous argument to people in order to mock what he considers to be their excessive assigning of blame), in which case it is not a fallacy at all. Pusher robot 07:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a dictionary

Does this really belong here? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Rtphokie 17:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a dictionary definition, so I'd say "yes". — Saxifrage ✎ 20:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hannity, Al Franken

I just rm these links from the External Links section, as they were completely without explanation. If you want to put them back in, please explain. --Graham^talk/mail/e 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They are both pundits that use the Straw man argument quite frequently. I will put this back in when I can source it. But seriously, you've never heard Hannity? He and Franken are both walking logical fallacies.

Please don't. Even if you can find a source that claims Hannity, or Franken, or both, is a frequent employer of straw men, it would still be a politicized and debatable claim, and it would violate NPOV, which states that Wikipedia characterizes debates but does not engage in them. Aside from this, what sense does it make to single out two debatable cases out of at least tens of thousands of people who have been accused of employing straw men? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Straw Person and Straw Woman

The source cited for this heading is of a completely different nature regarding the definition of straw person and straw woman. The insinuation that there is an overwhelming "movement" to degender the term "straw man" is fallacious in and of itself. If this is in fact the case, more sources are needed, or i recommend either deletion or that the variations be appended under the general heading of "straw man". It seems akin to me to asserting that there has been a general move to degenderizing the word "man". ??? comments ??? Alec

That is not what the entry says, nor is that what the source says. The word "man" cannot be degendered because it applies to men. A "Straw Man" has no penis, does not self-identify as a male, nor has any other justifiable reason to be considered more male than female. In academia, the world of logicians and rhetoricians, almost every university has a policy against gendered language which prohibits the use of the phrase "straw man." That is why if you do a search among academic journals in the last five years, you will find almost no use of the term "straw man;" rather, the literature refers to this fallacy now as a "straw person." This movement has begun in popular culture -- note that a google search of "straw person" achieves over 20,000 hits, although it has certainly yet to ecclipse "straw man" in the vernacular, which is why it has such a small entry here. There is no insinuation that the movement is "overwhelming," but it certainly exists, and it is certainly prevelant among the people that are the movers and shakers of rhetoric and logic. PStrait 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The entry states that "In recent years, there has been a move away from using the gendered term straw man" but the cited source says "In recent years we've also been collecting examples for the gender-neutral straw person and for the specific straw woman, applied to women used as subjects of easy refutation". The existence of examples of the term "straw person" and "straw woman" I don't deny. The entry implies that a majority are actively seeking to replace the term "straw man" with "straw person" while the source does not indicate such; thus I take issue with the relevancy of the source to the argument. As I posted above, I recommend more relevant sources are cited to support the argument and/or appending the derivatives "straw person" and "straw woman" to the part where "straw dog" and "scarecrow argument" are listed as variations to the term "straw man". Whether or not the term "straw man" is ceding currency to the term "straw person" and "straw woman" in the world of academia or beyond remains to be cited. The second source which is cited in the article is Susan Dobra (Ph.D., rhetorician) of the California State University's definition of fallacy and lists some common ones. She lists this specific fallacy as a "straw man" or "straw dog" argument, not a "straw person" fallacy. Either Dr. Dobra is not a mover and shaker in the world of rhetoric and logic, she needs sensitivity training, or she needs to update her website. While I don't presume to extrapolate from that one source the tides of academia, I maintain that until these terms are cited properly or surpass the term "straw man" in "google hits" (if that's the barometer we wish to use to measure popularity) that the aforementioned edits are made.A sutherland 06:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking the word "move" in the article for the very different word "movement". If the article were changed to read instead "In recent years, there has been a shift away from using the gendered term straw man" (emphasis for illustration), would that make more sense? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Susan Dobra is not a rhetorician -- she is an instructor, not a faculty member, at Cal State. She is not a professor, she does not have tenure, nor is she tenure track. Her webpage would fall under the category of self-published references by a non-expert, i.e., irrelevent. Having said that, I think Saxifrage's comment below is probably the best solution. Perhaps it could say "there has been a 'move' by some" or some other related qualifier. I'll also track down another source that compares the term "straw man" to "straw person." [User:PStrait|PStrait]] 22:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're in the process of finding another source to support the move to using gender neutral terms, I suggest using some of those academic journals of the past five years. They should be more informative than the current source, a nine-year-old Random House definition which doesn't cite its own sources, and yet ranks higher on a Google search than any other non-Wikipedia "straw person". Could it be that these two instances are feeding each other, with Wikipedia enhancing the visibility of the Word-of-the-Day page, which in turn validates the inclusion of "straw person" on Wikipedia? BaldAdonis 08:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely-- I added that webpage to this site like a week ago.PStrait 12:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol.. straw person? No Straw man is not a slap in the face to straw women but the term straw man is the historically used term. Seriously.. Degenderist movements for the sake of political corectness are humourously entertaining. --Home Computer 21:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unproductive comments are generally, well, unproductive. Do you have anything useful to say that is actually relevant to improving the article? The fact is that the term exists—that's not in question. The question is how to best reflect that in the article and whether we have good enough sources to do so. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be correct, but from the point of view of NPOV (irony intended), it matters more whether or not people use the term "straw person," not whether it is good or wise or amusing for them to do so. PStrait 22:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides.. straw women just look rediculously sexist.. @@ and my point was that the POV you are representing is probably a less that 99% type viewpoint on the subject and not really appropriate for wiki. Oh yeah and also.. stop frowning. You're much prettier when you smile and I hear it makes you live longer. :)--Home Computer 19:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about this source? http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=330 This is a blog, but Robert Waugh, professor of English at SUNY New Paltz, compares the use of straw person vs. straw man. He is making a normative argument, rather than a statement of common use, which is the problem, b/c its clearly not the place of wikipedia to say which term is more appropriate. For those who are dissatisfied with the current source, what would a source have to say in order for you all to be satisifed with the current article wording? PStrait 22:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Anita Bernstein, Professor of Law at Emory, discusses "straw person" legal arguments vis-a-vis the phrase "straw man" in 54 Vand. L. Rev. 1, January 2001. PStrait 22:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, at this website (http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=199), a footnote referencing John D. Mullen's Hard Thinking: The Reintroduction of Logic to Everyday Life (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995), discusses Mullen's use of the phrase "straw person" and explains that it is the politically correct version of "straw man." This isnt the best source, but it is more than just an example of someone using the phrase "straw person" in lieu of "straw man;" it goes further to show an example of this and explain that it is an alternate way to discuss "straw man," which implies that this is not super rare. All of the scholarly articles that discuss this issue discuss the broader trend of using "person" instead of "man" when there is no reason to think the referent is male, but I didn't want to water down this specific discussion with that kind of thing. I realize that this is not the place for original research, but I think these examples, coupled with the large amount of google hits that you get from searching "straw person," is sufficient to warrant the one sentence in this article suggesting that some people are using this phrase as a variation of "straw man." PStrait 23:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, blogs aren't reliable sources so that one is inadmissible. Without reading the text of the Bernstein piece I can't comment on it. Regarding the Mullen one, the only statement that we can faithfully derive from the footnote is "Straw person is a gender-neutral term for the same fallacy". Relying on implications and the like would go into unverified or original research territory. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought blog posts, like other self-published sources, were reliable if they were authored by a recognized expert in the field. PStrait 12:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No, only when the article is specifically about that expert is their blog a good source. Since there is no peer review or editorial oversight for blogs, there is no assurance that the expert is writing as an expert or just as some person. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rough estimate http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=strawman&word2=strawperson less than 1%. Extreme minority viewpoint. --Home Computer 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

ooh.. strawwoman is even worse. Less than .01 %

Googlefight is not an admissible editorial source. Besides, the fact that "straw man" is the overwhelming term at the moment is already reflected in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Google fight is only a tool that illustrates hit numbers. I understand it's not an editorial source.. Still it demonstrates how little the words are used. --Home Computer 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't mean source, as in for including in an article. I mean that, as a tool, I doubt that it is either (1) reliable enough to make decisions on, or (2) that there is an accepted common understanding of how it works and therefore how to interpret the meaning of the results for Wikipedia's purposes. The Google Test, by contrast, is fairly well-understood (by some) and there are generally-accepted ways of interpreting its results for Wikipedia's purposes. Even then, it is not considered something to base a decision on, only something that is food for thought. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Those who argue for "straw woman" or "straw person" are seeking to correct a gender imbalance that is not there. The origin of the expression is the dummy soldiers used in combat training. It is a metaphor comparing verbal argument to military combat. There was no such thing as a "straw woman" when the expression was coined (and, as far as I'm aware, there isn't one now either). Therefore it is not sexist to say "straw man" and any attempt to redress the issue is at best feminist wordplay and at worst a knee-jerk reflex based on ignorance. It is the equivalent of creating revised film titles such as The Birdperson of Alcatraz. Le poulet noir 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

EXTREME minotity POV's not appropriate in Wiki

Hi, this is an official policy of Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view " If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. " While I respect the challenges set before femminists and politically correct minded editors accoding to Wiki policy, this is not the place to document extreme minority viewpoints (such as the straw woman movement) I don't mean to offend with my jokes, just meant to keep it light hearted. In my limited POV I'm sure gender bias can be confronted in better places than strawman which is a negative term anyway, (like conman). Peace. --Home Computer 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it's ironic, you're using a straw man argument right there. The intention is not to document the straw woman movement (I don't think there's any such thing), so arguing against that is pointless. The intention is to document that the term "straw person" has started to replace "straw man" in some academic circles. This is a very different point.

And yes, I know and agree that extreme minority POV is not welcome in Wikipedia (I have helped edit that policy page regarding extreme minority POVs, in fact). However, I don't believe that it can be called POV to say that some people use "straw person". If the article was being changed to say "some people say it is better to use straw person", then that would be an extreme minority point-of-view and it shouldn't appear in the article. Note that it doesn't appear in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Saxifrage, the exact wording "In recent years, there has been a move away from using the gendered term straw man" should explain the nature of the "move away" because if it comes from a non NPOV then it could be considered POV and should rightfully be edited. I think this part of the entry came under heavy fire because it's so short it can be interpreted in a number of ways. Developing the argument so that it's cohesive, and expresses a clear neutrality would be an excellent way of resolving the issue (PStrait, since it's clearly not my field, maybe you would be willing). The issue is obviously something that has struck some interest in the talk pages and maybe merits some attention in the main entry. Citations please. A sutherland 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Homecomputer, please make use of the talk pages before editing a subject that is already under heavy debate. Until a consensus is reached regarding this issue it is inappropriate for you to singlehandedly, and to much protest, delete part of this article. There's no need for censorship here because there's no POV. It's a fact that the derivatives "straw woman" and "straw person" exist, and are in frequent use. The issue insofar is related to the framing of these terms within the body of the article and retrieving the proper citations. Saxifrage, Pstrait, Homecomputer, can we agree to append these two terms to the body of the article so that it reads "Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, a straw person fallacy, a straw woman fallacy, or a scarecrow argument." ASSUMING of course that Pstrait can retrieve the proper sources. Unfortunately, it is the requirement of a person citing an argument to find the source, not the person deleting it. Furthermore, while I assume good faith on the part of Homecomputer, the vandalism to the entry before deletion to make it read "but that's just silly" (see edited history) casts a suspicious light on Homecomputer's POV and respect for consensus and, frankly, feminism and the struggle to identify gender bias and correct it. Finally, although I'm aware it's better to reach a consensus on the talk page, a little part of me would glean a delicious ironic satisfaction from using a Straw Poll to canvass everyone's opinons. A sutherland 02:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love to claim that vandalism because it made me laugh, loudly even. However I'm not in the habit of vandalism, nor do I think that mainpages are the place to place witty comments. But I hear you, let's come to a concensus. --Homecomputer 15:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The bit about a straw poll made me laugh too. It would be a delicious play on words.

In any case, I think your assessment is fair. My main objection is that people initially wanted to remove the section not because it was insufficiently referenced but because they personally disbelieved the term had any currency. I do think that a stronger citation is needed for the section (or whatever form of mention it turn out to merit) to survive in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a grad student in Philosophy who pays a fair bit of attention to non-formal fallacies, I have never seen or heard of the term "straw person". Can someone cite a logic text or some recent journal articles where this is used? If not, I agree with Home Computer that it should not appear on this page. Wikipedia is a place for reporting things that are already notable, not a place to make things notable by giving them credibility that they don't already have in the real world. PurplePlatypus 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not difficult. Most universities now have a policy that proscribes the publishing of gendered-language. The very first hit in the philosophy section of JSTOR is Matson, W. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research > Vol. 59, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 1097. I could give you a laundry list of academic journal articles in the philosophy discipline which use this term if you'd like, but I can't imagine you are challenging the contention that the phrase "straw term" is used in peer-reviewed academic journals, especially those whose subject matter is philosophy. Where are you doing your graduate work? I bet wherever you are at, there is probably a policy against gendered language. Even Notre Dame has such a policy. PStrait 11:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I searched for both "straw man" and "straw person" in JSTOR, restricting the search to articles published in 1995 or later (after all, an article from 1950 would hardly demonstrate my point). Straw man had vastly more hits; I believe the tally was 747-38. I tried the same thing in POIESIS, which does not let you set a date range, but focusses on very new stuff (for example, they only have PPR from 2003 on); 221-15. Somewhat more anecdotally, I have yet to see a logic or CT textbook use "straw person"; though I certainly don't claim to have seen every such text to be published recently, I have seen and used a pretty good cross-section. I acknowledge that "straw person" is a bit more prevalent than I thought - I expected it to get about 1% of the hits on that test, not the 5.2% or so overall that it managed - but on my view, at least, this is still hardly evidence of a significant movement toward the term. PurplePlatypus 19:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (I assume "straw term" was a typo on your part. I did see "straw woman" once, but it was a case of one (female) philosopher more or less making fun of her (also female) opponent.)

Also, take a look at the refference within the article. The article wording inserts a large ammount of assumtion that did not come from the source. The source merely says, we notice some people use this term.. not that there is a growing trend to neuter the straw man. -=edit, looks like the last edit took the POV out of the sentance.. thanks, sry i missed it. --Homecomputer 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And after some time of everyone reviewing the issue are there any further objections to removing the section? --Homecomputer 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Actually, with the new wording as npov as it is, I think it's fine.. albeit still very minor at least it's acurate and doesn't detract from the article at all. Meh.. I'll probably support whatever concensus you all come up with on it. --Homecomputer 15:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the proper word for "Genders" when reffering to the genderal<-? =s context of a word?--Homecomputer 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Do you mean the gender of the word? In linguistics, that's just "gender", though it doesn't have any strong connection to gender in the reproductive-organs sense, and rather comes from the latin root meaning "kinds". Though, that's probably not what you meant because English doesn't distinguish words by gender in that sense... — Saxifrage ✎ 18:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah I mean if I'm talking about the gender of words, the topic is "Word Genders" but that sounds wrong somehow. So does the phrase "alternative Genderal usages of strawmen".. know what I mean? There's got to be a proper way to word that in English.. --Homecomputer 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. I was just looking at the section title and thinking that it sounded ungrammatical to me. I think it's currently inaccurate anyway, since "straw person" isn't an gender-alternative term, it's an ungendered term. How about just "Alternative terms"? Maybe we could fit the list above ("scarecrow", etc) into the section then, too. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with just including it in a list of alternative terms, perhaps with a one sentence or less explanation that some people use the term to avoid using gendered language. PStrait 15:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about titling the section "Variants"? — Saxifrage ✎ 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean this to sound rude, but isn't that what I've been saying all along?A sutherland 04:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I had read your comments to mean that your objection was the implication of an active "movement". Rereading, it could be that that was just the lead-in to this suggestion. Consider me convinced then. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 15:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a genderal discussion because some are either seeking to replace the male gender of the word or are making fun at modern P.C. campaigns in general. Even to neutralise the term is an alternate to the original genderal context of a straw man dressed as a slodier for target practice. Besides, alternate usages of the concept in different words are described in the opening paragraph. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you're proposing and/or objecting to with this comment. Could you clarify? — Saxifrage ✎ 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

@Pstrait

Regarding your last edit summary: While I agree that there is nothing to indicate that this is chiefly a humourous usage (though it occasionally is)... "almost completely supplanted?" Are you serious? Did you even read the comment I made above, where I show that this is not, by any remotely credible criterion, anywhere within two state lines of the truth? Even in very recent journal articles, uses of "Straw Man" outnumber "Straw person" by nearly 19 to 1. You don't have to like that, but at least recognize that it's reality. PurplePlatypus 03:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You searched journals from the last 11 years. This is a trend that has really only occured in the last couple of years. I don't support making claims like this in the article b/c it constitutes OR, but I will point out that in my field, Communication, the vast majority of journals are governed by APA style. These journals will not print "strawman" or other gendered terms any longer, since 2004. This also seems to be the case in the humanities. I have no knowledge of what the hard sciences are doing, but within the social sciences and humanities, my experience is that straw person is the new term of preference. PStrait 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If this conversation results in new sources, great. If not, leave the dead horse be. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair. How about this, though? Cook, P. (1997) Early Child Care – Infants and Nations at Risk. On page 70, Cook describes the "straw person technique" and then explains that it was "formerly 'straw man.'" Not perfect, but its easy to find people who use the phrase "straw person," and easy to find people who talk about the movement away from gendered language, but difficult to find many sources that compare the two terms directly. Also, like I said above, I would be content if "straw person" is just included in a list of alternate terms, perhaps with a short note that it has been adopted by some so they can avoid using gendered language. PStrait 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not perfect, yeah. It's another data point along with the dictionary one, which is an improvement. It's still not very strong because the treatment is brief. Better than nothing still. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

how is this a logical fallacy?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.186.114.180 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's presented as a refutation to an argument which in itself implies that, as a part of the premise, the perpetrator is suggesting that his/her opponent is either wrong or presenting a flawed argument. However, the perpetrator is not refuting the presented argument at all. The fallacy is not in the form of the argument which makes it an informal logical fallacy but a logical fallacy just the same. Far Queue 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy Category

I have added this page to the Logical Fallacies category. If you believe that this is incorrect please discuss it here before removing - thanks! Archiesteel 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Small Change

I am just going to make a small change to the part about children running into the street in order to make that section flow better. I hope no-one objects. Colincbn 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

odd redirect

why exactly does "grasping at straws" redirect to here, aside from the terms having a single word in common? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.95.83 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

External links

I have removed the external links from this article in accordance with WP:EL. None of the links provided "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." One was a blog written by authors who aren't recognized authorities, one only contained information redundant with this article, and one was a POV-pushing anti-evolutionism comic. --Muchness 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image typo

In the argument map, Image:Traffic congestion straw man.svg, there are two typos: “If more roads were build…,” upper left, and “…the same number of car tripd per week…,” bottom right. —Frungi 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And the creator says he’ll fix them presently, so never mind. —Frungi 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

YI created the SVG version and have now fixed my typos. Cheers for pointing them out. Stannered 09:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is the strawman?

   Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
   Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.

Is person A the strawman, because person B has set him up as the strawman, or is person B the strawman because he has instigated the strawman fallacy? I know it is established here that the person that starts the fallacy is the strawman, but from the opening of this example it sounds as if it should actually be person A, by person B turning person A and his argument into a "dummy target" (aka, strawman) and then attacking that "strawman" he just created. Or am I off track here? JayKeaton 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither person is the straw man, "straw man" does not refer to a person making an argument, but to an argument itself. In this instance the "straw man" is the imaginary statement, or reason (argument) that person B is responding to; (Person that doesn't exists: "We should lock up children all day so that they don't run into the busy streets"). If this is confusing, please edit the article to make it clear. Grumpyyoungman01 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the straw man example for highways incorrect?

I don't have any evidence, but my father works in the state DOT and he always told me that building more roads or expanding roads causes more people to use those roads (obviously) because there is a reason (studies) those roads are being built, regardless of the persons motive. I realise the previous sentence sounds like I am 12, but it just seems that it's a really poor example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.225.242.164 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't think the diagram was attempting to prove that building more roads leads to traffic congestion, it's just there to show an example of a straw man argument. What building more roads leads to isn't the subject of this article. (That it isn't attempting to make a real argument could be stated in the article, however.) Phony Saint 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the green argument is that the upper right "support" argument ("If people take more trips by car then traffic congestion will increase") can be considered as certainly true only when the number of roads does not increase. Thus, it may not be used as support for the sentence "Building more roads increases traffic congestion". I agree that it is still a valid example of a straw man fallacy, but it can be misleading for the reader. I am especially worried by the fact that the reader could think that "building more roads increases traffic congestion" after reading this.

The problem could be solved by deleting the upper-right "support" argument, and replacing the conclusion by "Building more roads not necessarily decreases traffic congestion".--OlivierMiR 15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the red and green traffic graphic is not only confusing, but POV. Citing a work which appears on a radical right-wing tv show is a covert attempt to influence people's political views. The fact is that more roads do increase traffic congestion. It's called the "law of diminishing marginal utility." I realise this article is not about traffic control, which is all the more reason to pick a better and clearer example. The example about locking kids up all day is a great one; we've all had those conversations. But picking a graphic from an Aussie program whose main mission is to perpetuate "Global Warming Skepticism" is bound to be contentious. It simply doesn't belong. 72.78.11.213 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know that I will fix these problems up a couple of weeks or so. - Grumpyyoungman01 06:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that "joy ride" in this context doesn't refer to joyride (crime), right? If so, can we find a different term so as not to confuse readers? howcheng {chat} 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the term is ok. It is the term used in the transcript cited. Can you think of a better term? How widely known is the term "sunday driving"? - Grumpyyoungman01 01:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't think of a better term. I live in Southern California ... people don't go out for such drives because of the traffic. :) howcheng {chat} 05:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw it as joyriding (the crime) when I read it. Whether I'm English has anything to do with it I don't know, however I've never heard anyone use the word joyride in any other context than that of the crime. On another note, I've never heard of Sunday driving. Perhaps if we believe people are confused by the phrasing, we could incorporate something of a more generic description of the act - something akin to the definitions found on google's define:joyride. "82.17.107.186 16:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Plural

Straw-mem? Straw-mans? Anybody knows? Lixy 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Use as a verb

I added this section a month ago or so. The background was that someone used the expression on me on a Wikipedia talk page, saying, "Don't strawman me!". I didn't know what the hell he meant, so I looked at the Straw man article, and was still unsure. Then I did a Google search, and finally figured it out, seeing a fair number of examples.

That's why I added the information to this article, and think that it is relevant. A couple of weeks ago it was deleted with the comment "deleted irrelevant and largely unsupported section".

Any other opinions? --RenniePet (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RenniePet you have documented convincingly that straw()man is seen in use as a verb. To conclude that usage is already established English usage seems premature and I think it prudent not to speculate beyond saying that it shows signs of entering the language.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. --RenniePet (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

reference

It seems unusually hard to find a reference for the history of this phrase. (I agree the Etymology Online link should be removed, it doesn't discuss the rhetorical meaning of the phrase, which of course is what this article is about)

I've found this but aren't sure it's reputable enough: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970611 CapnZapp (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple Strawmen

The following was added recently by Intigfx as an often-seen example of a straw man fallacy regarding evolution:

• Evolution vs. Creationism debate.

Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.

Person B: No, it doesn't say why and how the world was made, and has no morals. Besides, it is only a theory.

B has misrepresented the theory of evolution as a cosmogony, a moral code and an hypothesis instead of a scientific theory.

Here Person B is accused of using no fewer than 3 strawman arguments! An anonymous editor who may not be familiar with WP:AGF declared the above "a blatantly biased point of view and was there for no reason other than making a jab". Subsequent edits seem to reflect opposing positions in the actual debate rather than interest in notable occurences of strawman fallacy, or in seeking consensus on changes.

I suggest keeping the example in this reduced and hopefully less inflamatory form:

Person A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class.

Person B: No, it doesn't say how the world was made.

B has misrepresented the theory of evolution as a cosmogony.

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the creationism/evolution examples from this page. The factual explanation of the 'straw man fallacy' does not benefit by using examples that might invoke a high level of editing. --Andywingate (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the deleted examples. Andywingate you may be unfamiliar with how we work here. Wikipedia is created by many editors who seek to improve pages by consensus. That will often involve a "high level of editing" which is, in general, welcomed as constructive. The examples that you thought should be deleted reflect both sides of a debate. This degree of balance has been obtained through work by several editors who believe that the article benefits from these real world examples. Please see the comments below and remember that WP:NOTCENSORED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually think they're fairly poor examples. I would certainly favor replacement of them with better examples. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples and counter-examples: a ridiculous exchange

Oh come on guys, six examples? Including a "counter-example"? The article looks ridiculous; one example should be more than enough, especially coupled with the reasoning outlining directly above. This is an encyclopedia, not a rhetorics for dummies textbook. Nor is it a weighing scale - NPOV is not achieved by adding POV from multiple sides, it is achieved by adding objective and neutral material that in a fair manner describes the major POVs. However, there is no particular POV in an article on a logical fallacy - it's only in your examples! Again I say, remove them altogether. It is all too obvious this will not get any better. Plrk (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you and Cuddly are on opposite ends there. I consider myself distinctly in the middle. I just want balance. The Jade Knight (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If "balance" means trying to weigh two POVs against one another, it's just a slippery slope to a flame war hell. Six examples is anyhow ridiculous, I'm going to remove all but one now. (I'd still like to remove all of them though.) Plrk (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In any given argument, both sides may use straw men. I think, ideally, if we are to use any examples at all, examples from both sides of a single argument should be used. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It was to be either this or a drawing of the knight Don Quixote charging a windmill, and I found HumptyDumpty first. R.I.P..

Sitting on a fence can lead to a great fall. The counterexample "Banning homosexual marriage is like supporting slavery" was contrived and silly. Characterising a viewpoint by means of a metaphor is not a straw man fallacy anyway. Oh noble Knight, you meant well but puh-lease... Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the examples altogether?

I removed all of the examples, as they seem to serve more to start irrelevant talk page flame wars than to actually help the reader. I think the Reasoning section directly above illustrates the matter well enough. However, my removal was - unsurprisingly - reverted. I still think they should be removed. Thoughts? Plrk (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I do see some merit to this proposal, but I think it would be more effective to use well-conceived examples accompanied with well-conceived counter-examples, which I think would reduce the amount of flamewarring as well as provide illustrative examples. The Jade Knight (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any of these flamewar-proof examples, though. Plrk (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections soon, I will be bold with this. Plrk (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have objected. Flying in the face of consensus that other editors have reached over time (and are even as we speak consensitizing about yet more, see above) ain't bold it's discombobulating. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be "consensus" as much as "low-intensive warfare" to me... Also, note that I did not actually go ahead with the change, as I noted your resistance and expected you to object. Plrk (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not overlooking my objection. We do best by the article when we open a significant change to discussion here before doing it. Getting some varying opinions and reasonings is one of the delights of working for Wikipedia. I am happy to surrender LOL to whatever consensus develops. I apologise for my flippancy yesterday. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate that you're willing to apologize, Cuddlyable3, even if I've nothing to do with it—so few users on Wikipedia are. The Jade Knight (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join our brainstorming above, Plrk. I'll get to it "eventually" (it's on my list...) The Jade Knight (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia must give more insight into a subject than a dictionary or a basic book of rules. Nobody seems to doubt that a picture or two greatly enriches an article on a physical object. I suggest that rhetorical examples serve the same purpose in this article. But talking about flames and war doesn't actually produce any examples. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain was an honourable man but where were the voices against appeasement then? Bold editor Plrk acts honourably too but where is responsible Wikipedia editing when we need it? Plrk's bold deletion of all but one of the examples has rendered part of the following section Debating about a straw man incomprehensible. That is either an honest mistake or vandalism, and in either case must be fixed. Plrk, deleting everything that anyone might wage a flame war about is not Wikipedia policy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it so that in order to avoid Godwin's Law you compare me not to a nazi but to someone who effectively supported the nazis by not opposing them? The following section is indeed quite hard to understand, but it should be re-written to use "X vs Y"-examples rather than real-world disagreements. Plrk (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Plrk, the section Debating about a straw man was comprehensible before you came along and destroyed the examples that it depends upon. Now it seems you want someone else to clean up the mess you left, and to follow your directions. BTW your latest post proved Godwin's Law. Do you have anything to contribute to the article? That is what we are here for. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The examples have been restored, and the "mess" I left is now gone (and instead there is a much larger mess to be taken care of). As for the question of who actually broke Godwin's Law - I leave that to be judged by future readers of this discussion. Good day! Plrk (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Plrk for doing what you could to rectify things. Godwin's Law is an observed probability, not an interdiction. Thus nobody "breaks" Godwin's Law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Evolution and random chance

I thought I should point out that evolution has nothing to do with random chance. You may read the article on evolution and related articles. Plrk (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From the evolution article: "The second major mechanism is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population" (my emphasis). Natural selection cannot operate without continual random mutations. This is how evolutionists explain (teach) how biological diversity arises. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is correct; I thought that you were saying that evolution is random chance. It does include elements of "randomness", which you correctly refer to above. My apologies. Plrk (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No apology needed Plrk because you have raised an important issue. I think the article may prematurely dismiss the objection to "A: The theory of evolution must be taught in science class" as a simple straw man. Speaker B. alleges, by implication, that the venerable Teleological argument renders the theory of evolution unfit to be taught. That argument is part of a Belief system which in a modern guise might be Neo-creationism whose proponents fear that religion is under attack by the study of evolution. Teaching evolution for them is therefore language expressing disapproved beliefs. Stalemate? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with examples... Plrk (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Different type of straw man?

Doesn't the straw man fallacy also describe the situation where you characterise your opponents as having a different, less defensible position to the one they hold, and attack the less defensible position? Or is this simply politicians and journalists using sloppy language? --Robert Merkel

What you describe is the type of strawman noted at Reasoning 2.1 (misrepresention) and/or 2.5 (oversimplifying). I moved this thread that you started to the recommended position at the bottom of the page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition: suggested re-wording.

Summary of proposed changes

1. Change

"set up a straw man

to

"attack a straw man

Both phrases are used in scholarly literature, and equally good as examples, but the second is more in tune with the categorization of the form as a fallacy.

2. Tighten up the definition to make it clear that it is used specifically to assert that the refutation so described did not disprove what it claimed to have disproved. Currently it can be interpreted as being inclusive enough to allow valid arguments, as well as fallacious ones.

3. Change style of the opening from instructional

"to do x , do this...

to definitional

"to do x is to...

4. Remove

"yet is easier to refute

which implies that a refutation is, or is not, an example of a straw man argument depending on a subjective judgment of the ease with which the two propositions can be refuted.

5. Add the following.

"and refuting it

to be consistent with the change from using "setting up" to "attacking" as the starting point.

Current

To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent.

Proposed

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Mark.camp (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it. It seems to be an uncontroversial change, and a well thought out improvement. NJGW (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Be bold. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To "attack a straw man" is to create theattempt to give an illusion of having refutedrefuting a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but I don't think it's necessary to hedge that much... it would just make it a little harder to read. NJGW (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and agree. I will go with my text for now, to keep it shorter. But edit away if you very much like the added precision of "attempt to give". (Or, "attempt to create") Mark.camp (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this sentence add anything?

Current text

"While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique and succeed in persuading people, it carries no evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted (or properly acknowledged).

It seems to me tautological to observe that this, or any other form of fallacious argument, "carries no evidential weight".

It also seems obvious that it is possible in practice to deceive people with this particular form of fallacy. But that that is equally true of any form of fallacy, and not relevant to this article.

I propose to delete the sentence unless someone has a reason to keep it. Comments? Mark.camp (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have a sentence reading something like "As it is a logical fallacy, a straw man argument carries no evidential weight." NJGW (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, I do prefer your sentence to the current one. But I still have the same concern, that it should be self-evident that any fallacy by definition carries no evidential weight. The sentence doesn't seem to add anything. I removed the sentence, but if you feel that it is necessary to remind the reader that fallacies by definition have no value, then please feel free to substitute your alternative. Mark.camp (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I read through it a few more times (trying to fit in even a part of the removed text) and saw that you were right; the sentence was redundant. NJGW (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else?

I know this is unrelated but does anyone else have the urge to remove fingers everytime they get strawmaned the way I do? ((I don't think I have a user name, so I'll just go by "Dae.")) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.145.224 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it me, or do the vast majority of explanations of this pseudo-algorithm have some heavy chip on thier sholder? Most are really opinionated with otiose examples that only aim to shout "this idea is ****!!", sotto voce. Now, i know from all these big words that if you don't extricate things, you'll probably end up providing something along the lines of what i mean: keep things simple; don't get subjective - you'll waffle and overkill like this; and when you're trying to define x, don't use arbitrary things for your own agenda, stick to "algebraic" stuff - remain objective. I'm sorrry, this may seem irrelavent; but it's not. Just look up Straw Man on google and you'll see what i mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(P.S: Oh, and i haven't made any contribution at all to this "debate" - people like you think you're so smart.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorize examples

Agonizing over the impossibility of exposing fallacious arguments without upsetting anyone with vested interest in using them can go on filling this Talk page without improving the article. At least one good idea has emerged which is that editors should categorise the examples presented. Since the article defines 5 ways of reasoning by Person B we do well to identify 1-2 examples of each reasoning and label them as such. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the examples as I see it is not so much their category, but rather that their selection and presentation entice the reader to fall into other fallacies, such as argument from ignorance and argument from fallacy. Most of the examples now involve straw man attacks on traditionally liberal/leftist positions. So even though these are legitimate straw man fallacies, the reader may be left with the impression that because the original argument in each example was not refuted that it must therefore be true. This is POV pushing, even if it is cleverly veiled and technically accurate. Some suggestions to help fix this are: 1) include examples which posit traditional conservative/right positions with liberal straw man attacks, 2) warn the reader that just because an attack is a staw man that the original position may still be possibly invalid, 3) include examples where the original argument is uncontroversial false yet the staw man still fails to disprove it, or 4) construct examples in pairs with each original argument taking opposite positions and provide staw man attacks against each position. -- Dmeranda (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I support suggestion 2) above. The point to be made is that good causes are sometimes promoted by faulty arguments. Such a statement may hopefully deflect reactions to the substance rather than the logic of the examples we give. Suggestions 1) 3) and 4) above demand more examples to implement them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it more, I too agree that my option 2 is perhaps the most fruitful and easiest to implement with consensus. I'm tending to lean against option 1 (two POVs don't a NPOV make). I still like 3 a lot, the uncontroversial constructed example. But if real-world potentially highly controversial topics are used for examples, I think we have to try to do them like I suggest in option 4. I'll try to work on those. - Dmeranda (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apropos suggestion 2) above I have added this to "Examples": Straw man arguments often arise in public debates even when less flawed arguments could be found to support the same position. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on examples

I'm adding a (temporary) NPOV tag to the examples section. This is primarily to document an ongoing dispute over the neutrality and bias that some people see in the selection of the topics used for the examples. There appears to be an ongoing and mostly civil debate already occurring on this talk page, and work is being made toward a resolution. However disruptive edits of the main article page, without discussion, continue to be a problem. So I hope this notice will invite people to discuss here first. - Dmeranda (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Examples are one sided

currently all the examples are one sided, rectify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.231.243 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Examples all represent a single side of the (American, at least) political spectrum. Try to keep in NPOV, folks. The Jade Knight (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Best way to do this would probably give examples of straw men from both sides of any issue. That would ensure fairness. The Jade Knight (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Does "best way" mean caving in to anticipated vandals? The examples must be individual examples of the straw man fallacy. It is irrelevant that a cause supported by faulty logic may be a good or a bad cause.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What is not irrelevant is which examples are chosen to be included on this page. NPOV should be, of course, the order of the day, and the best way to handle NPOV in an issue such as this is to include examples of straw men from both sides of any given issue. This, of course, has nothing to do with vandalism, but everything to do with improving encyclopedic content. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone uses a faulty argument to support viewpoint X, Wikipedia is NOT obligated to contrive an equally faulty argument against X. (If there really are opposing strawmen arguments on the same issue that both make credible examples then that is a coincidence we can use.)

If you are determined to have every example error balanced by another error, that would mean for the existing examples we must find (invent?) credible fallacious arguments PRO liberalizing marijuana and PRO nude bathing.

The history of the page and the knee-jerk reactions of some editors to mention of some issues shows a tendency to vandalism which should be combatted by our properly bold obedience to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User 161.253 posted midway in my post above. I have moved and indented their post which follows. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If we intend the examples here to elucidate the concept of a straw man, it would be better to use hypothetical examples, preferably about trivial matters. There are two reasons for this. First, real-world examples are likely to be tainted by people's personal views and therefore not as useful instructively. Second, because sufficient hypothetical examples are not prohibitively difficult to invent, the inclusion of a real-world example could justifiably be interpreted as a violation of NPOV. I will conclude with what I think could be the model for examples on this page. A--"Chocolate tastes good." B--"I disagree, chocolate costs more than things that taste just as good." (B is assuming that A meant that chocolate is a good value for its cost, but A was only considering chocolate's flavor independent of other considerations.)161.253.70.195 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The above debate about chocolate is not a clearcut strawman example. B disagrees with A but supports their disagreement by introducing facts that in no way misrepresent A's position. A test is whether A would have to protest the premises B uses and in this example A has no such problem. Thus B's attempt to rebut A is weak because it is irrelevant, not faulty as a strawman fallacy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with people using faulty arguments! This article is about faulty arguments, and all arguments on this article are contrived. To insist that a faulty argument may only be contrived one way and not another seems like a clear violation of NPOV, to me. Including a counter-example would not be "vandalism", but would simply be upholding NPOV. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We might have a confusion of semantics here! The article is about a faulty form of argument that people sometimes use, otherwise there would be no article. It seems reasonable (not all agree) to show some credible examples of the argument. Yes indeed Knight, the examples are contrived in the sense that they need to be well selected to be both credible and demonstrative, while for obvious reasons keeping clear of personalities. I already said "If there really are opposing strawman arguments on the same issue that both make credible examples then that is a coincidence we can use" i.e. include the counter-example in that case. The test is the quality of the example(s), not upholding NPOV. Nobody should believe that either of the anonymous debatants "A" or "B" speaks as a representative of the Wikipedia project!

The goal in improving the quoted examples part of the article is the aptness of the examples, not any plan to make a comprehensive List of Strawman Arguments. That would be a very difficult and divisive ambition.

To clarify what I meant by "tendency to vandalism", that could mean outright deletion of any example that touches an issue that is a hot button for someone (among feminists, creationists, prohibitionists and religion-ists one finds an occasional zealot for whom the End justifies the Means) or insisting on adding a lame counter-example to everything. Provide only good examples please! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clarifying! This makes more sense. I still think, though, that we should make it a goal to try to provide examples which also have effective counter-examples: this way we can obtain both NPOV and good examples. That does not justify simply deleting examples one does not like, of course… perhaps we should "brainstorm" a bit, and try to come up with as long a list of examples and counter-examples as we can, and then pick the best of the list? The Jade Knight (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Knight. You begin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list of things to do. If you get impatient, feel free to start without me. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Use real examples? One by Bush, one by Obama

I know using quotations is highly subjective and should be relegated to the land of wikiquote, but I notice that Wikipedia in general is increasingly not strictly NPOV with its generous usage of random quotes by random figures. As long as it is sourced nowadays, it seems you can put a biased quotation by some significant figure in the intro paragraph of many historical event and noun articles. Anyways, here goes - everyone loves the straw man - these were found by a quick one minute google search.

One straw man argument by George W. Bush:

"[T]here is an attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or are incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy." [4]

And one straw man argument by Barack Obama:

"a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges." [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You have to specify exactly what the logical fallacy is. Long-winded or silly quotations from american politicians are not useful examples. It is not true that any quotation that is sourced is good to use, and this is not for an intro paragraph. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A reader's perspective

I'm a long-time wiki reader but have never posted till today so please excuse (or correct) any improper formatting.

First, it should be obvious from this talk page and the number of deletions and reverts made to the article that providing current real-world examples of a straw man argument is, at best, distracting to the reader. I am a reader, and it is the politically-charged examples that caused me to spend 30 minutes reading this talk page rather than spending that time learning about straw man arguments. Distraction is not a good thing, and not to be confused with what I call 'linking' or 'topic hopping'. One of the reasons I love wiki is 'topic hopping'. I actually started out looking at 'ASIC' and ended up on 'straw man', that's quite a leap and I was learning something new on every page. Until now. Now I'm distracted. Involved, but distracted.

Imagine that the original examples were all about the best color for a neck tie or which knot should be used and I think you'll agree that 90% of this talk page would not even exist. Instead, this discussion would be about the merits of the examples given, whether they are easy to understand, and logically correct.

Speaking of examples, with all the edits it's hard to know if the current examples are new or if they are the originals that started the debate. But I'd like to comment on the ones I'm seeing.

Prohibition debate - This seems to be a good example, as the transition from the original position of 'liberalizing beer laws' to the straw man position of 'unrestricted access to intoxicants' is easy for the reader to make. And at the same time it is easy for the reader to see the flaw in the straw man argument (that fewer restrictions on beer is really not the same as 'unrestricted access to intoxicants', a position that is easy to attack).

Universal Healthcare debate - This seems to be a bad example, not just because it's politically-charged, but because it's not a straw man argument. I don't see a substitute for the position of 'universal health care is good'. I'm not a logic expert but it looks like the argument given might be a combination of other fallacies (associating universal health care with communism, linking communism to poor economic performance, then implying that everything communistic yields a poor economy).

School uniform debate - Again, I see no straw man. Person B has not put forth a substitute position for 'school uniforms are good'. Instead, this looks like a completely different fallacy - reductio ad Hitlerum (which I learned about here on Wikipedia).

Another comment I'd like to make is that while current real world examples do get the reader's attention today, will they have the same effect 5 years from now? Why would we want to build an article that is dependent upon current affairs for it's effectiveness, thereby requiring constant updating as the examples go out of date? OK, Wikipedia is a living document and easily updated, but intentionally creating an article that is guaranteed to lose it's relevance in a few years doesn't make sense to me. If real, current examples are deemed necessary, can they be provided as links instead? That would allow the reader to stay focused on the article rather than be distracted by his emotional responses to a political topic. I think it would be better to first educate the reader to recognize a straw man fallacy, then challenge him to objectively review some current examples and apply what he just learned.

The good news: The current definition seems very good to me. It is clear and concise. The 'substituting a superficially similar proposition' phrase is (to me) key to recognizing a straw man argument.

A reader named Bob (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Example(s)

Editors seem to be having difficulties providing example(s) of straw men arguments. Perhaps being neutral about citing arguments that are bad, political, inflammatory or any combination of the above is more than your average amateur editor can manage. Here is what has happened recently:

Anonymous 75.141.210.137: deleted the 2nd example. No explanation, no discussion.

Myself: Reverted and asked "Please use talk page to discuss any objection to the 2nd example before repeating an old delete."

Anonymous 75.141.197.24: deleted the 2nd example. No explanation, no discussion.

Hu12: Changes heading "Example" to "Examples" which makes no sense if there is to be only one example!

Folks can behave better than this. I ask the 3 (or is it 2?) involved: Just what is your problem? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a horribly tendentious interpretation of the writer's intent? It's not a clear example, and has to make some fairly strained assumptions to be an actual strawman argument. Try again. And no, swapping out the name changes nothing. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Calton for explaining the lacks that you observe in the "felons are humans" example. This is the way that I wish everyone would discuss. Of course we can all agree to Try again. Have you an example to show of a straw man argument?

COMMENT: I think it unlikely that any supporter of a POV that gets supported by a straw man argument will be comfortable with the fallacy being exposed. Some people may never realize that a worthy issue is sometimes promoted by unworthy claims, and from those people can come knee-jerk responses like "Pot shots at feminism will be deleted." (- by an anonymous user 75.141.194.92). Whether Wikipedians can be intimidated from citing examples of this notable logical fallacy from the overheated arenas of sex/religion/politics may be tested here.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really stretching the idea of the example and ignoring the context that it was created in to call it a straw-man. Plus "The writer of the bumper sticker refutes an alleged consensus that maintains that women are not human, knowing that such a claim is indefensible." is a POV stance against feminism. Want to take it to a criticism against feminism section, or better to a forum or blog and elaborate on this thesis? Go ahead. But here it's a pot-shot.75.141.207.198 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Above we see FOUR anonymous IPs that ALL begin 75.141.xxx.xxx and seem too obsessed with their POV to understand, let alone tolerate, an example of the logical fallacy straw man. It is clear that the bumper sticker text concerned could not stand in "a criticism against feminism section" in Wikipedia, and the deleter's other suggestions just demonstrate their unworthy predisposition to mockery.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing the bumper sticker without acknowledging the context in which it was created or acknowledging the ideas that went into it and then calling it a straw-man is dishonest. It looks too much like an attempt at Poisoning the well against feminism when placed here on Wikipedia, where the dishonest label can gain credence on the appearance of being backed by neutrality and authority, to just let go without correction.75.141.216.5 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that FIVE anonymous IPs that ALL begin 75.141.xxx.xxx and seem intent on silliness. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try explaining why you think the bumper sticker is a straw-man instead of making insinuations against me? You are the one who wanted discussion, so lay out your reasons. And yes, my IP does change, I think it's because my cable goes out sporadically, is that a problem for you? 75.141.216.5 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have chosen to interpret the explanation given of the fallacy in the bumper sticker argument as being a "a POV stance against feminism". I see that as reactive nonsense on your part, and I don't see any interest on your anonymous part in contributing to the article. What you call discussion seems only to be a wish for confrontation. I am sure there are excellent arguments in support of feminist causes, and if you want to advance them I suggest that you get an account (i.e. name) in Wikipedia, supposing this is the arena for them. So far, your anonymous accusations of "dishonest(y)" and Poisoning the well and your threat to delete anything you dislike are the behaviour of a troll.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So far I've seen a lot of evasion, dismissal, and strained assumptions about my character, but 0 reasons from you explaining why you are maintaining that the bumper sticker is a fallacy. If you know how to explain why the bumper sticker is fallacy in a neutral fashion without ignoring or misinterpreting its meaning then you should share your ideas. It's your chance to educate not just me, but anyone else reading this thread, and all you have to do is redirect the energies you are currently expending on not explaining yourself to explaining yourself. You've wished for discussion, and wanted to know what "my problem" is. I've given you latter and we've still the opportunity for the former.75.141.216.5 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll, the fallacious reasoning on the bumper sticker was explained in the text you have deleted, likely because you can't understand it. Someone else may like to respond to your ridiculous anonymous "outraged feminist" posing but I shall waste no more time giving you the educating that you need/crave. Have a nice day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with the nature of and the so-called neutrality of the reasoning. If you are unable to handle disagreement and are unwilling to explain yourself so that we could work towards a more nuanced understanding of issue then you should not have complained that others aren't explaining themselves or discussing the issue. It's unfortunate that in this situation not engaging in conversation was actually far more productive than attempting discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.216.5 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TIGRESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddlyable3 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So it's been over 2 weeks. Are you willing to engage in a dialog with me now?75.141.216.5 (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm not really sure why my example of universal healthcare was modified. i realized that it was a bit long, but it was intentionally written as such to provide insight on exactly what a strawman does, and how it commits a fallacy. personally, i think that in it's modified version, it is oversimplified, and as such isn't a convincing example. i'd like to change it back to it's original form, but i'd like to see a reply first. thanks -xenfreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenfreak (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This example confused me when I initially read it. B's misrepresentation of A's argument is very subtle, since it could be argued that support for universal healthcare, while not a sufficient condition for being a communist, is a necessary one. Also, in real-world debates, A's reasoning is typically labeled "socialist" rather than "communist," and there's an argument to be made that A is objectively speaking a socialist to the extent that he supports universal healthcare, just as many (most?) Americans are socialist to the extent that they support public education. In summary, calling A's position "communist" is much easier to establish as false than calling A's position "socialist;" this is relevant and problematic because while the article's hypothetical example is good per se, it could easily be tainted by the real world experience of readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.70.195 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the healthcare example because it was too long, much longer than all the other examples, and it tended to being an independant essay explaining the strawman fallacy. Examples should support the Reasoning section rather than having one particular example as the fundament for the article (and why this particular example above the others?). As to whether we should have B labelling A as a communist or a socialist, I think we are on safer ground by keeping B's rebuttal clearly fallacious i.e. "only communists believe...so A (implied) is a communist" on closer inspection is exposed as the 4th kind of strawman set up. User 161.253 please sign your posts. It is not clear why you think the easy to establish falsehood is problematic because it could be tainted. This is not the place for a debate about socialism in America. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

---

This 'what is a good example' thing being accused of being POV or NPOV seems rather silly to me. The question should not be whether you agree or disagree with the argument presented, but whether it is an example of the logical fallacy itself. Better yet, cite something that has 'actually been used and identified by some textbook author, journalist (although there you have POV questions regarding said journalist..)

Perhaps another way to resolve this 'what is a good example' question once and for all is to actually copy a example of a straw-man argument from a good logic textbook (I don't know of one though), and then reference it? Then any question about how 'appropriate' the example is will fall not to the Wikipedian who put it there (who after all is just copying what is in a textbook), but to the author of the textbook. (Write to the publishing company if you want to continue to argue..)

Now mind you, I am not a logician, so perhaps this edit itself contains some logical fallacy or is POV (well, it 'is' POV - POV toward not having these seemingly endless discussions..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.185 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the NPOV of the first four examples: all four of them seem to have been written by someone whose views are extremely liberal in nature and so they chose examples which would favor their own POV by making the person using a straw-man argument someone who could very well be a misinformed or seemingly stupid person with conservative views. I say we could have some variation to represent more than one or two views and to make it more NPOV in general. If you truly seek NPOV, fairness, and tolerance, then there should be no opposition to changing an example or two. Invmog (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Selection of examples

In an article whose purpose is to educate the reader about a type of fallacy, which would be a more effective choice for an example: a strawman argument on a controversial topic, or a strawman argument on a topic which is itself of no great interest to any reader?

I would say, the latter. Although using a controversial example does make our article more colorful, it has disadvantages.

The first is that it goes against the very purpose of the article, which is to get the reader to understand the topic at hand: "What does "strawman fallacy" mean?", "How do I recognize what is, and is not, a strawman argument?"

A neutral example, as one finds in the literature ("Aristotle is a mortal", etc...who cares if Aristotle is a mortal or not?) focuses the readers mind on the subject, instead of on some issue about which he or she is passionate.

The second problem we create if we allow ourselves to use examples relating to controversial subjects is more serious.

We create the impression that our article, and Wikipedia itself, is being used by its authors in an inappropriate, even intellectually dishonest way: to promote the author's views on an unrelated topic.

I urge other editors to ensure that all examples be chosen for their accuracy and clarity, and that they be as uncontroversial as possible. To do otherwise, for example to attempt to turn this article into a fairly refereed boxing match between competing authors who are seeking to use it promote their views, is to be distracted from the purpose of the article. If you wish to demonstrate that an argument against your particular religious or political views is a strawman argument, you should present it in some place other than an article about the logical form itself. Mark.camp (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I also think "real world" examples, such as the ones in the article now, might get the concept across more effectively. People often don't realize their argument is a straw man fallacy, and I suspect that having real examples might convey this more effectively. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% w/ Editor:Mark and would caution against real world examples...Real world examples only tend to elicit emotionally-driven real world responses. And, as you say, the readers mind responds NOT to the subject (a false argument) but to the topic of the example used. The readers rhythm is thrown off. A dissident response is created. Which is not the purpose of the article. The examples should have absolutely no suggestive, symbolic or figurative meaning what-so-ever.

They should be completely ambiguous. I'm reminded of the tactic of replacing "Martian" for the word "Polish" in the telling of an off-color or race-baiting Joke. Let the Martians get upset. Here, at this article, there is absolutely no good reason to use examples that bring out differences in the Darwinist/Creationist or any other hot-bed debate.--Buster7 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Real world controversies are where strawman arguments are usually generated. If we allow any proponent in a controversy to cause the chilling effect of self censorship, where do we stop? The only way to appease every fanatic would be to shut down most of Wikipedia. Born2cycle is correct. Buster7 is wrong to say "Real world examples only tend to elicit emotionally-driven real world responses" because most users of an encyclopedia learn from what they read.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of the NPOV policy is to prevent authors from using an article to present their points of view about the subject of the article, rather than presenting neutral, citeable information about that subject.

But if, instead, one uses an article about subject 'X' to indirectly promote a controversial opinion about subject 'Y', one has introduced something irrelevant to the article. It isn't a violation of NPOV per se, but it is potentially more damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia. The author is using an article as a Trojan horse for promotion of a POV on some subject utterly unrelated to, in this case, "Straw man arguments".

When the article is about a fallacious form of argument, as this one is, there is a legitimate requirement to give examples. Without understandable examples, the article simply fails. This requirement creates a great temptation to promoters of viewpoints on subjects unrelated to the article to insert their views into an encyclopedia where they are almost certain not to be seen, let alone challenged, by reviewers of the subject of those views.

For example (which I hereby proclaim to be non-controversial ;-): if I present my opinion that Burbank is actually an alien universe inhabited solely by pickpockets in the Wikipedia article on Burbank, it will be quickly exposed as violating both the NPOV policy and the one requiring citations. But if I hide my view in an article on "Strawman arguments", what is the likelihood that it will attract the attention of experts on Burbank? Much less, of course.

Now, of course, those who argue for inclusion of controversial examples have a very good point. They make the article relevant and interesting. But at what cost?! In reading the sad history of this article and Talk page, one is tempted to ask: is the dramatic advantage of including examples guaranteed to insult, humiliate, or offend one religious or political group, and arouse bloodthirsty rabid support by another, really worth it? The opposing sides turn the article, and this Talk page, into an interminable mud-wrestling match which may have some lurid appeal, but does the article ABOUT STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS get any better at the end of the day? Mark.camp (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is it better to use real world examples where people use strawmen, or make up examples that don't exist? NJGW (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, it is a matter of degree. I would rate them as follows

Any incorrect example: F

Correct but with provocative thesis (offensive, politically polarizing, etc): D

Correct, easy-to-understand, real-world: A

Correct, easy-to-understand, made-up : A

We should seek over time to move up the quality scale till we have an excellent article. Replace "F's" with "D's", "D's" with "A's" or "B's" or "C's".

The last two (the two "A's") are about the same for me. The last is good because it is the clearest for someone who is already very interested, and who is adept at abstract thinking. The second-last creates slightly more distraction from the point at hand, but engages the interest and concentration of the reader who is not quite as curious at the start, or who is a little less inclined toward logical thinking (a more concrete, pragmatic mind).

Mark.camp (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mark.camp for taking time to give your ideas. It is indisputable that it would damage Wikipedia if an author used an article as a Trojan horse for promoting a POV whether relevant or not but how can you argue that such isn't a violation of NPOV?

I don't believe there is any way you could keep hidden an unsourced opinion about Burbank in this article from editors who watch it.

Your suggestion by rhetoric questioning that any editor inserts examples for "dramatic advantage..guaranteed to insult, humiliate, offend...[or]arouse bloodthirsty rabid support" violates WP:AGF egregiously. Perhaps there is lurid appeal in such intemperate language. It should be resisted.

The categories A - D - F that you propose (unacountably there are no B, C or E) would be easier to understand if you were to provide actual examples illustrating what you mean. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Your suggestion ... violates WP:AGF egregiously". I'm not so sure Mark's suggestion violated WP:AGF, and more certain it was not egregious. Remember WP:AAGF as well - and yes, I know by citing this that it applies to me too making this statement, and I don't want to imply that any party has bad faith here. About Mark's colorful comments, I don't think he was intending to state that he believes the authors of the disputed examples wrote them in bad faith intentionally to push a POV, but that by evidence of the talk page history and the general nature of the subject matter, that the examples do seem to elicit quite a controversial and potentially distracting reaction. I take it to be a comment about the text and subject of the examples and the documented disputes about them, and not a statement of their authors' intents. As for the lurid appeal, I think it was just harmless hyperbole. - Dmeranda (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the inclusion of real-world examples is a good idea. The comparison to communism one is a great idea for the exact reason that some of the above posters said - it's one that many people are familiar with and one that is time and time again used in politics - I think this shows the pervaviseness of straw man arguments and might clue people in to just how often (very often) the straw man fallacy goes unnoticed in debates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.34.13 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In the USA maybe. In other parts of the world, that sentence seems very america-centric. 80.62.160.94 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

Quotes are left-wing propaganda200.75.240.237 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All quotations or just ones that you disagree with? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly we should just avoid specific arguments on touchy subjects. We can have examples that are not politically charged. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more concerned of the fact that the examples portray conservatives as the only ones who use strawmen arguments.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Which quotations do you have a problem with? Then we'll discuss them. (User:Figg 16/8/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preposterone (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples

Regardless if the examples given are straw men, it would probably be wise not to use political examples. Particularly where all of these examples seem to have the person commiting the fallacy on a particular side of a political spectrum. Stick with "Dick and Jane" stuff or "widgets".

I too am now strongly favoring removing all examples which are in the slightest controversial/political or that can be perceived that way. They are clearly overwhelming and distracting from any other substance of this article and the edit warring has been going on for way too long with no end in sight. Besides, it is not even clear that the examples are in any way sourced correctly (are they original research), or if they should even be part of this article. And whether intended or not, it is clear that many are perceiving the examples as POV pushing, or at least systemic or implied bias. If the description isn't clear enough then we need to improve the description; not just list of bunch of arbitrary and examples. I don't see the examples as necessary to the article, they don't really provide any additional information that can not be expressed in other ways, and in particular the choice of examples used is apparently quite arbitrary and mostly unimportant. This is not the place to take political stances, or make the appearance of them. See WP:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE -- Dmeranda (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I reverted an edit earlier, which I saw as making the healthcare example convoluted, and artificial*. It has since been replaced. Nothing after the first example is cited, and I suspect it's all Original thought. I think we should remove them, and will boldly go and do so.

*The opposite way round (universal healthcare = socialism = bad) is a real example, but for us to say so without source would also be Original Research and possibly Synthesis. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the current second example (evasion) has anything to do with strawman... 67.169.181.142 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think so either, but I've removed it on grounds of original research. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am depressed that editors keep reacting to the Example(s) section. I am resigned to endless changes and deletions occurring here as long as anyone with any minority viewpoint thinks the article must respect their "cause". That is their selfish interest blinding them to what the article is actually about viz. the (il)logic of a defined rhetorical fallacy, and not whatever issue an example is taken from. Beyond my displeasure however is the disgraceful negligence on the part of editors who delete examples while leaving references to those examples in the section Debating around a straw man. Disjointing an article in this way is not responsible editing. It is vandalism. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Leaving orphaned and no-longer needed references, is as you say, editor negligence, but it is far from being vandalism. I fail to see any minority (sic) viewpoint, causes, or selfish interests being pushed in what I view as good-faith attempts to improve the article and remove unnecessary POV, whether implied or real. Examples are not or should not be central to the article. And certainly if examples are to be included, which is itself arguable, there are hundreds of perfectly lucid, demonstrative, and non-controversial examples to choose from that could serve this article perfectly well. Don't confuse opposition to a specific example on the grounds that it may cast POV concerns with opposition claiming the examples to be false. Just because an example may be "logical" or even sourced still does not mean that it is necessarily appropriate for inclusion, especially if more appropriate non-controversial examples could be used instead. Now if someone wants to start a different article, say List of straw man arguments, then maybe that would be a better place to fight for inclusion of some specific examples that authors want to express. - Dmeranda (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmeranda magnanimously excuses editors who plough into the article bent on amputating some parts while leaving connected parts to bleed. Other editors who have actually worked on building the article through consensus could differ. What one sees or conversely fails to see depends on where one looks. I have no idea why you insert a sic when you echo my phrase "minority viewpoint" because that would only make sense if you had observed some kind of typo or spelling error there. It would be nice to believe Dmeranda's claim to know of hundreds of perfectly lucid, demonstrative, and non-controversial examples to choose from that could serve this article and even nicer if Dmeranda shared any here. That would be preferable their mocking proposal that anyone start a List of straw man arguments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the Talk page of AlmostReadytoFly about the disjointed deleting. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy now?

Please don't conflate oversight or inability to see a best solution with vandalism. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the statements at the end of this example regarding Nassim Taleb are far too specific, and are perhaps far too much an expression of opinion about an individual than useful commentary. Perhaps the statements are true I don't see the need to use an individual in this case as the example given above it seems complete. Further similar examples would be of use to people who struggle with the concept, but using an individual is frankly just going to be bad for the reputation of that individual and may serve to inflame users who like his work. 67.126.84.202 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Another use of man of straw is that you should not attempt to sue a man of straw as they will have no money to pay for the case even if you win! Paul Ancill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.56 (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Man Of Straw

Why does "Man Of Straw" redirect here? Wouldn't it be more likely that someone would be looking for the book over the argument? Ora Stendar 23:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Upgrading this article.

I think this topic is being seriously underated.

Even judging by the debate here alone there is reasonable cause to upgrade it from mid-importance.

I think there is enough web traffic and activity to consider it being very important.

Do we think that it should only be catogorised as philosophical science?

Surely, it is also legal too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycarlyle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

oh wow

i cant believe there is an expression to sum up the whole of bill oreilly. thanks wikipedia, ive always wanted to know the word to describe the actions of this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.213.210 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Not always a fallacy??

From the article:

"Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy."

This sentence is vague and confusing. What is meant by "is not always itself a fallacy"? It sometimes is, but sometimes isn't? The point of the article is that a straw man argument is an argument that falsely claims to refute a proposition. So, what is this sentence saying--is it saying that that definition is wrong? What is the relevance, in logic, of how "carefully" one presents a weakened form? I would like to understand what the writer of this sentence was attempting to say. Mark.camp (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the statement, and moved it to the lead because it helps define "straw man". An example however would help. NJGW (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Still a little confusing. Could you give an example of the form of argument you are referring to in the following? It should be an example of an argument that does not meet the definition of a straw man argument, but could easily be mistaken for one.

It should be noted that carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always straw man.

Mark.camp (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my sentence, and as you can see from my comment I think it needs an example as well. Logically, it does make sense though, as just because a weakened version is used, the argument does not automatically become a fallacy. I can see how this would be the case if the original premise was itself a fallacy which needed to be simplified, or if simplifying the argument into individual pieces and then disproving each piece individually is the tactic being used (argument by exhaustion). NJGW (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. As the definition is currently worded, it would not be correct to call the form a fallacy. I've proposed a change to the wording below. Mark.camp (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consistent with other tweaks (in first paragraph) to tighten up the definition so that it is clear that it refers to a fallacy, I re-wrote second paragraph as follows. As written it seemed to suggest that the example might fit the definition of straw man, and yet be valid:

"It should be noted that presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements--both being presumably easier to refute than the original position--must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, then the refutation is valid, and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument.

In so doing I eliminated a cross-reference to "argument by exhaustion". If you think this reference was valuable, please re-insert it. I think that the example I give in the above text is, in fact, an example of "argument by exhaustion". If so, the cross-ref could be added back in by appending a sentence:

"This form of valid argument is an "argument by exhaustion".

Mark.camp (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

---

It is, actually a straw man. Presenting a single point from an opponent's argument and refuting that is not fallacious. Changing part of an opponent's argument is always fallacious unless the change is an agreed-upon alteration made in order to bring the opponent's argument in line with mainstream views. However refuting this point is not the same as refuting the original argument!

If your change is designed to present a weakened version of an opponent's position then that argument is always a straw man in that you are avoiding the strong argument in favour of a weak argument you yourself have constructed. In both cases the original argument remains unrefuted as you have chosen to attack a completely different one!

To use Wikipedia as an example: Say you post an argument I disprove of but am having trouble refuting. The easiest way to refute your argument is to edit it and then refute the weakened version. A straw doll is, essentially, the same, though the root text *usually* remains intact (unless misquoted, which it often is).

Ion Zone (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Grasping at straws" as a redirect?

Why is this so? Grasping at straws, as I'm familiar with it, is a figurative verb that has nothing to do with straw manning... 68.75.224.214 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a problem with the examples...

Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor. Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.

In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's position from "more funding" to "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat.

Ok, so I'm confused about the explanation of the example. First, it quotes "more funding". From where though? I did not see person A say that directly... could it be the example is straw manning!? haha.. that's just what I'm confused about with that example.

Now, when I came here to say this, i noticed there has been a LOT of fighting over examples being POV all the time. So, why don't we just start brainstorming some examples right here? Or would that be original research... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar123abc (talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"spend more money" implies funding. But it does not imply handouts. However you do have a point, because it is often argued that in certain circles, "spend more money helping the poor," automatically implies handouts or negative connotations. I agree, examples of logic should be designed as both airtight and clear. While "what some people might assume," may be inside the boundaries and scope of informal conversational logic, these considerations don't belong in Straw Man.
--68.127.87.182 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

"more funding" is ambiguous because it might mean either "the need for more money to accomplish this" or "increased financial support of poor people". The issue of where money might come from is not addressed. The example argument can be about allocation from scratch of a given tax income. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

added "Usage, Embellishments and Detection"

I added a new section: "Usage, Embellishments and Detection" See: Wikipedia:BRD. Any major problems??
--68.127.87.182 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

I think it should be deleted/rewritten. The references linked are all about death panels, and not about straw men. Yes death panels are a straw man argument, but those articles do not name them such. The statements in the section specifically about straw men are all original research, or at least need references. In particular "Straw man fallacies are popular with propagandists because they can evoke powerful emotions, and can involve entertaining, easily repeated tales which can take on a life of their own.", and the entire last paragraph of the section are at fault. Additionally, the specific example is very politically charged. Since this section is about their use in politics (in which case the section is mis-titled), the politics could be justified, but perhaps a historical propaganda might be less controversial.

I will be deleting the section in a few days unless it is cleaned up, or there is objection here.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on further review of the text, I am going to delete it immediately, as the entire section is a problem. If someone wants to rewrite it with citations and NPOV feel free. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Strawman" (Etymology)

If I have understood the concept correctly, a 'strawman' refers to the idea that a soldier could dress up a strawman as a fellow soldier. If the strawman was mistaken for real, it would draw enemy arrows/bullets (away from the real targets)? If that is correct I think it should be explained in the beginning of the article somewhere.
—Apis (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article says, the origins are unclear. The usual story told is that strawmen were used in training, because they're easy to defeat (e.g. they don't dodge). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow managed to ignore the entire Origin section when reading the article. :( Very interesting.
—Apis (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always known this as a "scarecrow argument" and indeed that redirects here. This would rather suggest that the correct etymology is the most obvious one, ie just as a farmer uses a fake person made of straw to masquerade as a real person (to scare birds), someone deploying a scarecrow argument / strawman uses a fake depiction of their opponent's position which only superficially resembles their actual position, and is easily destroyed. I may add something to this effect to the Etymology section if no-one objects. Quaestor23 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

While your premise is perfectly reasonable, it falls under original research unless you can find documentation for it, and should not be added Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed wording of oversimplification scenario

Changed "Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version." to "Presenting an oversimplification of the opponent's position." because "then attacking this oversimplified version" is redundant because of step 3, and the wording more closely adheres to the wording of the other scenarios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.86.47 (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin OR :-)

Walton in 1996 did not have google books to search in. "United States Supreme Court history : miscellaneous articles" from 1940 (or so) contains the snippet '... what the British call an "Aunt Sally" and we a "straw man."' [6]. Possibly OCLC 743493594 and OCLC 83392684 are the same volume. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Main meaning

By the way, I'm not convinced that "straw man argument" is the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of "straw man", although there is one dictionary which lists it this way [7]. It's true that the competing business jargon is not mentioned in this dict: "(1) a person compared to an effigy stuffed with straw; a sham (2) a sham argument set up to be defeated, usually as a means of avoiding to tacked an opponent's real arguments." Or in this dict "a person of no substance (esp. financially); one nominally, but not really, responsible; a sham opponent or argument set up for the sake of disputation." Tijfo098 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between Straw Man and Aunt Sally.

In my personal experience, a Straw Man and an Aunt Sally are two different things: The main description of a Straw Man argument is about correct as far as I can see. This is where you put forward a false or weakened version of your opponent's standpoint, and argue against that instead of his real argument.

An Aunt Sally is more similar to the activity of "running something up the flag pole". A group of people may choose to debate an Aunt Sally position, just to see how it helps them further understand some related arguments. In other words, all parties are aware of the weakness of the argument, but willing to discuss it anyway (perhaps hoping to be surprised).

I think the author has made a mistake in assuming that Aunt Sally is just the equivalent UK usage and means the same thing as Straw Man does in the US. I'd think most educated UK people would be capable of using either term, with distinct meanings. The first of the two references, gives an example of scientists collaborating using an Aunt Sally, which would support the view that it isn't the same thing as a Straw Man.

Of course, it's possible that Straw Man has a second usage (a minor one?) which /is/ equivalent to what Aunt Sally means. I think we'd need more references to establish that though. For now, I'd just like to raise this question over the accuracy of the article.

Dominic Cronin (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Structure: is that really the way it goes?

I find that the structure argument veers off from the Straw Man Fallacy into the Argument from Consequences. If A has unfortunate consequences, that does not make it false! What makes it false is that it's a broken-backed, straw-man version of the actual A. To wit: "A is false because Straw-A is untrue!" Please correct me if I am wrong. Monado (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, I think the structure section has it right. Using the symbols from the section, Person 1 substitutes Position Y for Position X in his arguments, because it is easier to attack. That tacit substitution is the source of the logical fallacy. The fallacy is not that his arguments about Y are untrue, it is that they don't say anything about the truth or untruth of X. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Biased Examples

Why do both examples have a liberal debater winning over a conservative one ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.149.179 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's easier to find straw-man arguments promulgated by conservatives? Liberals have a touching faith in the power of actual facts to persuade. Monado (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the "straw man" technique is only used in the most emotional, "hot button" issues, the likelihood is that any recent example will polarize readers. I don't mind the current examples (I think the Republican death panels argument against Obamacare would be a perfect example) but as most of the entries on this talk page show, partisan examples have distracted readers from the topic of this article. It would be nice to go back far enough in history to find uncontroversial examples. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Straw Man

This fallacy is more properly known as "sophistry" or "Sophism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.86.118 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Afraid not, those are completely different meanings. Although one might accuse Plato in engaging in straw man tactics in his stereotyping of the stances of the Sophists which led to the term taking on negative slang meanings. Ranze (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead section is too short, abstract and dry.

The Lead section is outside of wiki guidelines, being too short, abstract and dry. The Lead is not interesting, despite the fascinating and often raucous reality of this extremely common rhetorical trick and its typical loud, cartoon-voiced, bombastic presentation. (If not the most common, it is certainly the most flamboyant of the rhetorical tricks used in American right-wing political talk radio!)

Also, "deny" is (dusty-sounding) jargon of Logic, and jargon especially does not belong in the Lead. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) Serious writing does not mean dry writing. Effective communication engages an audience. Inappropriate jargon (inappropriately assuming experts) is ALWAYS BAD, sloppy or lazy writing. I'll try to spiff it up some.
--71.138.23.59 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

New Submission

I plan on adding to this page as part of a class project later in the week. Please feel free to change any information that you feel is incorrect. Thank you!Jwhann6 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Darwin example

Shouldn't be in the article, since it's a bad one. Saying that Darwinism includes concepts of superior racist, isn't a straw man, since that was what Darwin indeed believed. I take the guess someone posted it to score points in another debate unrelated to the straw man fallacy. --197.228.51.174 (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link

One of the links at the bottom of the page is broken, I think the first one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.85.134 (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The sunny days example doesn't belong here

The "sunny days" example isn't a straw man, it's and a slippery slope fallacy and an ad infinitum fallacy, doing extra duty as a red herring. Someone with a strong background in philosophy and debate needs to overhaul this and various other fallacy articles, which have been edited too much over the last several years to reflect incorrect understandings (based on WP and webboard arguments) of what various classic fallacies really are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is.

A: Sunny days are good.

B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

A's assertion is "Sunny days are good".

The straw man argument, which A never makes, is "all days are sunny".

B's straw man attack is, "If all days were sunny (implying the straw man argument - "all days are sunny"), we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death."

It is slippery slope and red herring as well, and it's not the greatest straw man example, but it is a straw man, because it is arguing against an argument that was not made. --В²C ☎ 06:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what B is doing at all. B is ridiculing the position A is actually taking – not a perversion of it – by pushing it to an extreme and predicting inevitable bad results from that, using all this to distract from the underlying point. That's not a straw man, it's ad ininfitum and slippery slope being used as a red herring. If B had instead launched into an attack about "not-entirely-cloudy days", "sunny and fairly sunny days", "sunny days without food", or "sunny afternoons in particular", or some other formulation that could be mistaken for A's position was not A's position, then it would be a straw man. The not-entirely-cloudy case changes the criteria A used; the "sunny and fairly sunny" case broadens the criteria beyond what A's argument included; the "without food" case imposes a condition not imposed by A; and the "afternoons" case circumscribes a subset narrower than A proposed. The attack on what would happen if all days were sunny suffers no such failures and does not misstate A's argument in any way, and it thus not a straw man. It's a different kind of fallacy (a pair of them used in tandem) not to misstate the argument, but to draw unsupportable conclusions that make the argument seem wrong, and the distract from the original point, which still stands unchallenged. [It's unchallenged because the fact that rainy days can be good, which is what B's argument boils down to when stripped of the hand-waving, does not invalidate the proposition that sunny ones are, but is actually a separate position, nor are other factors accounted for, such as that a day can be both sunny and rainy at different times of day and/or in different areas, etc. But none of that is germane to the issue of why this example is wrong and needs to come out of the Straw man article.] Just the fact that you have to incorrect read into this argument that B is "implying [a] straw man argument" is reason enough to remove this example. The article need to illustrate clear examples, not other fallacies that some people can be tricked into mistaking for the straw man.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What? B is not ridiculing the position A is actually taking. The position that A is taking is, simply, "Sunny days are good". "If all days were sunny" is not merely pushing A's position to an extreme, it is perverting it. Another example:

A: Drinking water is good

B: If all you consumed was water, you would die. Therefore drinking water is not good.

The sunny day one is such a classic straw man example, it's actually used in published books, like this one[8]. Please don't ever try to correct me about straw men fallacies again. This appears to not be an area in which you have a good understanding. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not an WP:RS, it was copied from WP.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to keep a collegial tone here, В²C. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Remove: It's a poor example that can't be sourced.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Remove: What Machine Elf said. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a classic and properly sourced[9] example of a straw man. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not an WP:RS, it was copied from WP.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what is so wonderful and irreplaceable about this example that it is even being defended. It is artificial and stilted, totally unrealistic, an extremely poor example, even if it was not a false example and unsourced. We have 4 other examples of straw men in this section. If that is not enough, the "sunny days" example could easily be replaced with any number of better, sourced examples. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Putting aside whether it is properly sourced, it is a bad example of a straw man. B did not set up a straw man of A's position. If sunny days are always good, then *only sunny days* should also be good. But clearly, it is bad to have sunny days under some circumstances, which is shown by B. Either A's position should be changed to "sunny days are sometimes good", or a different example should be used. —ITouchedTheKore — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITouchedTheKore (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have reached consensus here, with 3-4 editors opposed to the example. Deleted it. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Reference argument"?

What does the term "reference argument" in the lead sentence mean? I have never heard that term. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed it. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in lede

This one: "To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."

That reads like original research. Are there studies that show this to be true? If so are they discussed in the article? I mean, the audience could very well be informed and non-ignorant of the original argument, but they could be just... dumb. Happens (on Wikipedia) all the time. Removing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

About the Structure section, for the "Inventing a fictitious persona..." point.

The example given in the structure section here: "Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical." Does not constitute a straw man fallacy. It fall more under the ad hominem of Genetic fallacy (attacking the person making the argument, or attacking the original of an argument, rather than the argument itself).

If the action or beliefs are not misrepresented and are actually what receive a counter argument, it still fit the description given in the example, yet it can't be considered a straw man fallacy, as a straw man fallacy require attacking an argument the other party didn't make.

This is a very common mistake and it should be best to avoid making here too. Sorry if my earlier edit was considered vandalism.2A02:A03F:C3F:9F00:2054:3771:F79B:80D0 (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I had not noticed that bullet point before, but yes I think you're right. Technically, that would be called either a "hollow-man" argument, or "nut picking" (if the person that made the argument is real but is obviously a raving lunatic), which are explained further down under Contemporary work.Legitimus (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Straw man corporation

There is no mention of this in wikipedia. I am short on time so I cannot explain it now. Google search "straw man corporation" if you want to know more. I can assure you by firsthand knowledge that most of what you can readily find on google is correct. Skane (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I came to this article to look at this very point.

STRAMINEUS HOMO: Latin: A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety. This definition comes from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th. Edition, page 1421. Following the definition of STRAMINEUS HOMO in Black's we find the next word, straw man (Strawman). STRAWMAN: A front, a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purposes of taking title to real property & executing whatever documents & instruments the principal may direct. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term "strawman" as: 1: a weak or imaginary opposition set up only to be easily confuted 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction. The straw man (Strawman) can be summed up as an imaginary, passive stand-in for the real participant; a front; a blind; a person regarded as a nonentity. The straw man (Strawman) is a "shadow", a go-between. For quite some time a rather large number of people in this country have known that a man or woman's name, written in ALL CAPS, or last name first, does not identify real, living people. Taking this one step further, the rules of grammar for the English language have no provisions for the abbreviation of people's names, i.e. initials are not to be used. As an example, John Adam Smith is correct. ANYTHING else is not correct. Not Smith, John Adam or Smith, John A. or J. Smith or J. A. Smith or JOHN ADAM SMITH or SMITH, JOHN or any other variation. NOTHING, other than John Adam Smith identifies the real, living man. All other appellations identify either a deceased man or a fictitious man: such as a corporation or a STRAW MAN (STRAWMAN). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like a FREEMAN than a STRAWMAN? Pelagic (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a Strawman-by-omission?

I propose deletion of the section on the above. The reason is that A and B are not in a genuine debate. Instead they for the purpose of advertising are acting a discussion where one part plays an incapable or incoherent proponent in order to help their partner to persuade more convincingly with their boldly stated message. As long as we define strawman to mean a fallacy of logic in debate it cannot mean a person who acts unintelligently. We cannot say "you are a strawman", only "you use a strawman argument". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "strawman by omission" is in fact, not a strawman, but rather an agent provocateur (where one person pretends to represent a POV, but in fact is attempting to undermine it). The Jade Knight (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

An agent provocateur has a secret agenda that is different from helping the target to advertise. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have strangely mixed up my terms—is there not an expression for falsely pretending to represent a POV in order to undermine it? The Jade Knight (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Parody (verb) - to make a poor and feeble imitation Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But it's not parody… The Jade Knight (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section Strawman by Omission Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

@Jade Knight: Yes, there is: Concern troll. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe you mean, for example, pretending to be a communist and professing evidently absurd and outrageous beliefs in order to discredit communism? I'd call that a type of false flag operation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that like straw man by acquiescence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycarlyle (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Sally

... is still in use in the UK and should appear in the lead. Just used it in conversation in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.76.191.45 (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The way the term is introduced here "Allegedly, in some parts of the UK" is quite inappropriate: the term is used every day. And I don't agree with the earlier entry in the talk page that suggests the meaning is different from "straw man". Unfortunately, though, in Wikipedia it's not enough these days to know something, you have to find a citation, and that can be tough. Mhkay (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Straw man. 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/20160303181716/http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm to http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)