Talk:Motte-and-bailey fallacy

Not a fallacy per the person who invented the term

"Some people have spoken of a Motte and Bailey Doctrine as being a fallacy and others of it being a matter of strategic equivocation. Strictly speaking, neither is correct." http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ 98.114.130.5 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks—Shackel's opinion was already in a footnote, but now it is mentioned in the article body as well. As Shackel noted in the same piece, many people speak of it as a fallacy. Biogeographist (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Contrast with steelmanning

What about adding a contrast between this and steelmanning, where the opponent instead of the proponent only attacks the more defensible position? Themumblingprophet (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that's a useful contrast. For Motte and Bailey, the more defensible position is often a universally accepted platitude like "Women are people too", so even when steelmanning, you wouldn't attack that. Steelmanning is attacking the strongest version of an argument, while Motte and Bailey is not strictly a matter of retreating to the strongest version of an argument. Contrasting the two would probably do more to confuse the idea of Motte and Bailey than to clarify it. JB Gnome (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Strong and clumsy wording

"(T)he critic is a fool or a degenerate"
That's a rather oddly and (entirely needlessly) strongly worded statement. "Degenerate" is not commonly used in English in any form (outside the alt-right), this strikes me more as a limited and specific quote. I'm sure there's a far more indifferent (and far LESS offensive) way of putting this. (TBF, I don't personally care; Wikipedia is entirely leftist trash, no better than your alt-right counterparts.) 69.10.167.226 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Making Wikipedia Better Than Weekly World News

I read this comment and wondered what had happened to this article, since the last time I looked at the article, before June 20, this was a staid, sober stub article on philosophy or argumentation theory. Since June 20, it appears to have become a culture war battleground. Looking at the references, the inspiration for the sudden change appears to be the article in RealClearInvestigations, published June 19. Several of the sources that have been added to the article since June 20, including RealClearInvestigations, are the opposite of "leftist" and refute the claim above that "Wikipedia is entirely leftist trash". I've changed "a fool or a degenerate" to "unreasonable", as more relevant and concise. Biogeographist (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we do anything about removing obvious culture war references? I no longer feel comfortable sharing this link over other sources. 170.218.219.22 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on the article for a few days. I will try to make it more neutral with a better variety of examples. What explains the selection of examples is mostly the original sources it's built from (Slate Star Codex and RealClearPolitics, among others). MonsieurD (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do about the examples

I've added one example which seems politically neutral to me (morality being socially constructed), but there have been complaints about political slant in the examples selected in this article. On the one hand, I believe that's true. On the other hand, the slant seems to come from the sources cited (mainly Slate Star Codex and RealClearInvestigations). I hesitate from deleting any one of them, and I wonder what the community here thinks. MonsieurD (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As I noted above, I was shocked when I saw how much the article had changed since before June 20, but now that the Pandora's box has been opened by citing articles that discuss culture war controversies, I doubt that the box can be closed, because an important point of the articles by Zabel and Murawski (for example) is that this argumentation pattern is used to conflate controversial and uncontroversial positions, and that is hard to show without showing examples of controversial positions.

I think the way to approach this is to wait until someone presents a good argument here for deleting any one of them. An argument that occurred to me (although I have not yet decided whether the argument is strong enough to justify removal of the examples) is that slogans like Black Lives Matter and Make America Great Again refer respectively to a social movement and a political campaign that are coalitions of people with a range of positions, so the expression of different positions using those slogans is not necessarily a motte-and-bailey conflation of the positions, but simply the co-mingling of distinct positions that is inevitable in any coalition, which may make those examples inappropriate (i.e., insufficiently clear-cut cases of a motte-and-bailey). In other words, each example should be an unambiguous real-world motte-and-bailey argument/doctrine/fallacy, not a slogan used by a coalition of people with varying positions, and not an umbrella term for people with varying positions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC) and 19:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. As a prelude, I will clarify that Wikipedia's view of reliable/unreliable is not the same as correct/incorrect. Editors might be in agreement that an unreliable sources is the best at explaining something, but that opinion is not good enough. Sources have to have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, as demonstrated by editorial oversight, corrections, accountability, etc. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

So... "Examples" sections on Wikipedia are often a minefield of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Instead of using unreliable sources to present a specific, politicized opinion as a "fallacy", we must stick to reliable sources. In this case, that will almost certainly also mean independent sources. Slate Star Codex is not a reliable source, since it is an anonymous blog. Heterodox Academy is also not a reliable source, and we would need a specific reason, based on reliable sources, to include opinions from unreliable sources. For that reason, I have trimmed much of the article.

One place to discuss the use of these sources for this article would be WP:RSN. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy is unquestionably a reliable source. It's comprised of professors and university administrators (and grad students, although they're not full members as far as I know), and it is rated as a high-quality source with only a slight right-leaning bias.[1] It was founded by Jonathan Haidt, who has never voted for a Republican by his own accounting in The Coddling, and includes board members such as Cornel West and Glenn Loury. Arguing that this is not a reliable source is through the looking glass. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumping into the middle of an old discussion is usually not productive. Medibiasfactcheck is a blog which is not reliable. If you have a specific item you think should be cited, discuss at WP:RSN. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take that to mean that you concede the point. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If that was an attempt to be clever, try harder please. The source is not broadly reliable, but RSN is the place to discuss a sources's broad reliability. If you want to discuss specific changes to this article, start a new section so that other editors can find it, or at a bare minimum, post at the bottom of this one, per WP:BOTTOMPOST. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding this revert, the use of BlackLivesMatter.com for this is WP:SYNTH. I am also concerned that this is a WP:FRINGE perspective, as all of these points are cherry-picked, and consistent with the false and extremest claim that BLM "destroys families". To avoid giving this perspective undue weight, this should be directly supported by reliable, independent sources. The point of this article is to explain the "Motte-and-bailey fallacy". It is not appropriate to use this as an excuse to make pointed political claims in Wikipedia's voice. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As I do agree that the way it seemed presented is WP:SYNTH, the main source does itself arrive to these conclusions as it exposes "The capitalized version is a political movement with an agenda that includes slavery reparations, queer advocacy, anti-capitalism and disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure." As such, I wonder if the simple removal of exterior source for these elements could remove the problem of WP:SYNTH. Also, as I also do agree that this could be construed as WP:FRINGE, I find it weird that we select only certain examples the source exposes and not others. Since this specific section is "According to John Murawski writing for RealClearPolitics" I would encourage either adding all examples or none. I would also have liked to make a case for showing how BLM can be built as a motte-and-bailey while ALSO showing how ALM could be built the same way. I have not, however, found a credible source for showing how ALM can be built as a motte-and-bailey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyKeyboard (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support removing these examples. I added a wikilink to John Murawski as a way to assume good faith that his views were significant enough to be added in the first place (WP:REDYES). If he is not significant enough to link to, and this one article is the only source we have for these examples, it should be removed or trimmed. We are already over-relying on Murawski's article, so I do not see much benefit to readers to including these.

As for ALM, we should avoid false equivalence. A sample of a movement's views can be framed to imply they are fallacious, but this may just be a bad-faith argument. This claim doesn't mean that the "opposite" movement must also be fallacious, nor would this necessarily matter for this article. We do not assume that there are only two sides, nor that each side must be treated the exact same way. Grayfell (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a wider variety of examples from many sources should be prioritized. If not possible, second best would be no examples and worse (as we see now) be only certain examples that we are not validated in choosing. As such, I support removing examples unless we can find more sources with more examples. I also agree on your views about the ALM as it's a tricky subject to get across. I was merely pointing out that multiple sides of a situation (we could also use Blue Lives Matters as a third option) can be construed in a motte-and-bailey situation. However, I am not saying they always are, or are in a majority of cases, nor am I saying they should be considered as such, only that they can (to which one can exemplify how). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyKeyboard (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell wrote: I added a wikilink to John Murawski as a way to assume good faith that his views were significant enough to be added in the first place (WP:REDYES). If he is not significant enough to link to, and this one article is the only source we have for these examples, it should be removed or trimmed. There are many factors that could be considered in deciding whether a particular source is "significant enough" to cite; just because a publication is significant enough to use as a source does not mean one needs to assume good faith that the author is notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia could only cite sources written by authors notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them, we would need to have a massive purge of sources throughout Wikipedia. Murawski's article could be significant for other reasons, but I don't know what those reasons would be. Ninjatacoshell cited Murawski in this article about a day (or less) after Murawski's article was published, sparking the increase in editing activity that this article has seen over the past couple of weeks. Perhaps Ninjatacoshell could explain why Murawski's article was significant enough to cite in the first place?

HairyKeyboard wrote: If not possible, second best would be no examples and worse (as we see now) be only certain examples that we are not validated in choosing. There is no reason given here for the claim that second best would be no examples. The existing examples from Murawski were not cherry-picked from his article; rather, they were the only ones that survived (so far) subsequent critical scrutiny. Biogeographist (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The notability of John Murawski has nothing to do with whether or not the info from his article should be included. The reliability of the source is the relevant criterion. Unfortunately, RealClearPolitics is not listed in WP:RSP. I would oppose removing the source because it would gut the article. It will not replace consensus on Wikipedia, but you can look at this and at this to get some idea of the quality of the source. MonsieurD (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems with discussing logical fallacies on Wikipedia is the tendency to expect these simple rules to apply to consensus, such as the flawed assumption that the cleanest argument is always more correct (calling this the "fallacy fallacy" would be missing the point). Neither notability nor WP:DUE have any short-cuts, so we need to look at the bigger picture. The goal is to write an encyclopedia article explaining this term in direct, neutral language. Are these examples necessary for us to meet this goal?

The notability issue is a bit of a distraction, but notability can be useful for determining due weight. Due weight is not always pass/fail, and using an overview of a source doesn't mean we are obligated to use every detail from a source. RealClearPolitics has a mixed reputation, and a brief overview of a news article in an outlet with such a reputation may be appropriate. Heavily relying on such a source is not appropriate.

For what it's worth, Mediabiasfactcheck is not reliable, since it is a blog which admits that its own methods are opaque and arbitrary. Ad Fontes Media appears superficially better, but all of this must be taken in context, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Heavily relying on such a source is not appropriate. I replaced Murawski with a scholarly source in a couple of places to partially address this.

I just noticed that the Black Lives Matter example was added (and quickly reverted as WP:OR) almost a week before Murawski's article was published: interesting timing, perhaps random coincidence, or was there some buzz about this elsewhere that subsequently also inspired Murawski? Biogeographist (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Google answered my question: David French wrote about BLM as motte-and-bailey in National Review in July 2016 and the idea has been floating around the Internet since then. Biogeographist (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of the relation to other concepts

Inside the Related concepts section there was an explanation of the interrelation between other concepts like Equivocation and Pooh-pooh. This has largely been removed. I am not sure exactly when but in at least the last two weeks. I thought this discussion was useful. --69.172.158.251 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Those sentences were removed by Grayfell likely because they were unsourced, which is a valid reason for removal per WP:V. An explanation of the relation to equivocation and pooh-pooh would need to be sourced, not WP:OR; meanwhile, wikilinks to the relevant articles are still in the "See also" section. Biogeographist (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Murawski examples

From Real Clear Investigations[2], which is the reference being used for the examples:

"Several philosophy scholars contacted by RealClearInvestigations said a widely circulating example that is prone to Motte and Bailey manipulation is “black lives matter” (the Motte) and “Black Lives Matter” (the Bailey), two very different concepts that can be interchanged almost without notice. The Motte is the slogan. The Bailey is the program not everyone can salute [...] The lower-case form is a self-evident truth where an activist can safely retreat if pressed on the politics of the organization that bears the same name. The capitalized version is a political movement with an agenda that includes slavery reparations, queer advocacy, anti-capitalism and “disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

The reference to BLM's website [3] that I added is in support of the quote stated in the RCI reference to demonstrate that the "disrupt[ing] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" is not a strawman. And the example that this editor keeps readding (with respect to "believe all women") is one that is not explicitly given in the Real Clear Investigations reference. It is mentioned, but never explained as it is in this Wikipedia article. It fails confirmation and can be interpreted as original research.

This is not WP:SYNTH. To assert otherwise either demonstrates that one has not read the reference or is being completely disingenuous. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jumping to insults is a bad idea, especially in section titles. These "scholars" include independent researcher James Lindsey, who's blog is quoted for a discussion on "Make America Great Again", but not on BLM; and Slate Star Codex, which is a (purportedly) anonymous blog.

The BLM source says this:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.[4] (emphasis mine)

The attached statement was not a neutral, proportionate summary of that source. It deliberately stripped surrounding context from the source to make a pointed, misleading political point. Further, that source is not reliable for this point, in that context. We do not play stupid to context and use sources to make tangential political points. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN or some other noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The RCI reference does *not* say that the reference for this statement was James Lindsay (or Slate Star Codex). In fact, it almost certainly wasn't, because he is not a philosopher. Lindsay is a *mathematician* (not a philosopher) cited later in the article for a different claim. (He is actually the source for the MAGA example, which you seem fine with.) I agree that he's a joke, but regardless, this argument is an ad hominem attack. Further, the statement that you quote from BLM further *proves* the motte-and-bailey. The organization promotes additional social goals beyond equal protections for African Americans (bailey), which is all that a literal interpretation of the "Black lives matter" motto suggests (motte).

If you distrust the article, remove the examples and the reference altogether. It is especially disingenuous to have the "believe women" example there because it is never explicitly stated by the source as it is here. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the examples and the reference. See above and the edit summary for reasoning. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the examples attributed to Murawski. That seems to be the endgame toward which all the discussion above was heading.

But perhaps there is a bigger endgame, @Bueller 007: I see you added the {{Notability}} tag; why not just nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD on the basis of lack of notability? Biogeographist (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sheer laziness. I would be A-OK with this article being deleted. I think this is a fine example of WP:TOOSOON. I'd say that it's likely that this term is going to blow up eventually, but we don't have enough evidence for an article at the moment. If you want to recommend for deletion, I will support. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I also support removing the Murawski examples. The misuse of the BLM source alone makes me question the reliability of the outlet, but there are other red flags, as well. This is why I suggested RSN, but I don't think this article is strong enough to be a good test case. All of the other sources, especially the John Holbo blog post, should also be looked at carefully. Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the article fails to be notable enough. If you think references are insufficient, we could add the David French article mentionned higher, but that will send us back the way of political examples. For example, French also describes the definition of feminism as being subject to motte-and-bailey tactics :

Campus feminists are the masters (mistresses?) of the form. With one breath they’ll declare that feminism means smashing the patriarchy, blasting apart gender norms, and celebrating lesbianism (that’s the bailey), and then when they’re challenged on their extremism, they’ll retreat to the motte of claiming that “feminism is just the belief that women are equal.” In other words, they take extreme positions, retreat to moderation to bolster credibility, then go right back to the extreme when the pressure eases.

Source : https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-radical-divisive/ At this point, I think it should be obvious that the concept "motte and bailey fallacy" is used more by the right to describe stuff happening on the left. I think sanitizing the examples too much can be a problem. It would be nice if we could find a source which documents this slant in attribution. MonsieurD (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability is not about the sources cited in the article; it is about the sources available in general. Biogeographist (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm very much a novice but I think that citation 4, the RCI link, should be replaced with, for example, https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte. The prior sentence reads as if the supporting citation will link to the Slate Star Codex article which popularized the concept. It instead pulls a bait-and-switch and enters an RCI article, which I don't think is at all the least biased source. I think it would be far more effective to link instead to the original, popularizing, Slate Star Codex piece. It would be another thing if the RCI article linked back to the SSC piece, but it does not appear to. 2601:646:400:5990:F1C7:3036:4D95:686D (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The key word in that sentence is popularized, and the SSC blog post in itself doesn't show that it popularized the concept. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:SECONDARY. Saying that the blog popularized the concept without citing a secondary source would be WP:OR (original research), which Wikipedia doesn't do. Biogeographist (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources

I'm putting these sources here with the objective to ensure the notability of the article.

• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-016-9398-2
• https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-radical-divisive/

MonsieurD (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How do you think putting those sources here "ensures" the notability of the article? Passing mention in a book review and in an opinion column do not prove notability. Biogeographist (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's say "working towards ensuring notability". I think it would be a shame if the article got deleted. I'm not a native english speaker so be charitable with respect to word usage. MonsieurD (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Biogeographist (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is unreadable

This wikipedia page has become super convoluted and unreadable from the perspective of someone not super well versed in logical fallacies FYI. It used to be much more accesible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8300:D1A0:34BB:E100:BC3F:2781 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What part(s) of the article don't you understand? Biogeographist (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

An IP editor removed this section with the edit summary: "It is not helpful to have some random person's criticism of a fallacious argument tactic in as short of an article as this."

1. The criticism is not from a "random person"; it is from a qualified professor of rhetoric who was invited to respond to Shackel at OSSA, one of the major conferences on argumentation.
2. The criticism is "helpful" because it sheds light on the ways in which the motte-and-bailey concept can be used or misused, and contributes to a broader and more neutral point of view on the concept.
3. Making an article less "short" is an expected part of the process of editing an article to transform it from stub class to B class or eventually to good article status.

For these reasons, the section should be restored. Biogeographist (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I restored the section and kept the valid typo correction made by this user. MonsieurD (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It really does contribute nothing because it doesn't show how the fallacy is allegedly misused – it "sheds light" on absolutely nothing other than to reveal there is a disagreement between Shackel and Harris, and that the latter believes Shackel to be a hypocrite. The rest of the article doesn't explain how Shackel used it to attack postmodernists; it explains only the fallacy itself in generalities. The criticism section should likewise contain criticism of the concept – an argument that it is invalid or at least useless. The section should be removed or rewritten to be relevant to the topic, which is not postmodernism, Shackel, Harris, or their particular views. WP Ludicer (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would support removing the quote because it doesn't really bring new information. I think the summary is good, though (opposition with principe of charity, etc). MonsieurD (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. I rewrote the section for clarity, removing the block quotation. Harris's larger point here is the rhetorical use of the motte-and-bailey concept: he's saying that the concept can be and has been misused. In his opinion, the concept has been misused by Shackel, but that's not directly relevant to this article; the important point is how the concept can be misused. Biogeographist (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What to do about the examples, again

Some edit warring appears to be starting again over controversial current political examples in Motte-and-bailey fallacy § Examples.

Let me point to an interesting fact: June and July of 2020 were the first full two months when there were current political examples in the article, and there were 65 edits in June and 45 edits in July. By the end of July, the current political examples had been removed. In August there were zero edits to the article. My tentative conclusion from this data is that inclusion of controversial current political examples in this article invites edit warring (because: controversy).

A problem with the "defund the police" example recently added is the same problem I mentioned above in § What to do about the examples: A coalition (or even just a diverse unaffiliated collection) of people with a range of positions is not necessarily a conflation of positions. The "defund the police" slogan is apparently used by different activists in different ways, but John Murawski's article presents no evidence that any activist was using the slogan as a motte-and-bailey doctrine. Murawski refers to "the Twittersphere" as a source but provides no links that would support his claim (citation needed!). The NY Times opinion article by Mariame Kaba that Murawski cited as "evidence" for Murawski's motte-and-bailey accusation says: "I've been advocating the abolition of the police for years." There's no motte-and-bailey conflation there; Kaba is clear about her position. She's not conflating reform and abolition; she is anti-reform and pro-abolition. If anything, this is a good example of trendy misuse by Murawski of the motte-and-bailey concept.

Controversial current political examples are not required to explain the article's subject. An apparent benefit of excluding them is that we avoid edit warring. For these reasons, I recommend omitting controversial current political examples from the article. If it is unclear whether an example is controversial or not, the example should be discussed on the talk page and consensus reached before it is added. Biogeographist (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The purpose of examples would be to explain the concept, not to cram in an unrelated and contentious political position. As it is merely Murawski's claim that this fallacy applies, and this claim is clearly disputable, this is essentially a primary source. Presenting this in factual terms is inappropriate, and John Murawski's opinion is not obviously important to the entire topic. As I mentioned at #Murawski examples, I think the source' errors and misrepresentations make it unreliable for factual claims. Grayfell (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Being new to this topic, I think including more examples would definitely help to explain this phrase and how it is used, even if those examples are not universally accepted as instances of this 'fallacy'. Robofish (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is helped by incorrect examples. Examples would need to be from reliable sources that have strong arguments and evidence about how someone is using a motte-and-bailey doctrine, and that don't merely claim without good textual evidence that "Make America Great Again", "Black Lives Matter", "Feminism", etc., have been used as motte-and-bailey doctrines. Biogeographist (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we please just remove all examples from modern politics and get on with our lives? There are plenty of historical examples that are not WP:COATRACKS. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, isn't it enough to quote The Art of Being Right? s:The_Art_of_Being_Right#Put_His_Thesis_Into_Some_Odious_Category Nemo 15:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)