Talk:No true Scotsman

Not really seeing the point of the final paragraph - thoughts on removal?

Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has suggested that phrases like "no true Christian ever kills, no true communist state is repressive and no true Trump supporter endorses violence" exemplify the fallacy.

On top of being false (the phrase "communist state" is inherently self-contradictory - communism is stateless), it just doesn't actually add anything to the article. It's tacked on at the end of the "Origin and philosophy" section, but it's not related to the origin at all, doesn't really add anything philosophical, and doesn't help clarify the subject any more than other examples already do.

I would just delete the paragraph, but it seems that similar deletions have been reverted, so I'm looking for some sort of consensus first. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't really get it either. What is it adding for the reader? Valereee (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Basically my thoughts. I'll axe the paragraph. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a decent explanation for the not to intelligent person, but a not to intelligent person wouldn’t say that, so I guess im not not an intelligent person. ~2026-29463-4 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, looking back at it again, I don't think it's even a good explanation. It's not even showing the fallacy, it's just listing three things that might get used in a NTS fallacy.

The NTS fallacy specifically requires making a claim, said claim being refuted, and then adding a qualifier to that claim to counter the challenge (with said qualifier usually being along the lines of "True X" or "Real X", rather than a legitimate counterpoint). These three statements could hypothetically be used for the third part of the fallacy, but they're not, unto themselves, examples of it.

There are actual examples which actually show the fallacy already on the page. Including the iconic example at the very top.

Examples, which, ya know, don't make oxymoronic statements like "communist state". DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Was reverted for "unsourced" edit

My edit was reverted as “unsourced,” even though it introduced no new claims and merely expressed, in clearer terms, what already appears in the cited sources. I therefore request that the reverted edit be restored.

While I am adhering to the obligation to remain polite, I must state plainly that this reversion was entirely unjustified and unacceptable.

This was my edit:

Another example from a different domain

Claim: “Sexual harassment can never be committed by a subordinate against someone higher in the hierarchy.”

Counterexample: Empirical data show that there are cases of sexual harassment by soldiers against female officers.

Ad hoc response exhibiting the No True Scotsman fallacy: “Those are not real cases of sexual harassment.”

The fallacy lies in the fact that, instead of addressing the evidence that refutes the claim, the speaker alters the definition of “real sexual harassment” so as to exclude the counterexample from the category. This is precisely the mechanism of the No True Scotsman fallacy: artificially preserving a universal claim by dismissing contradictory cases, without providing a substantive justification. By contrast, the following example employs a similar structure but involves a substantively justified qualification, and therefore does not constitute a fallacy.

Initial claim: “A rectangle is a geometric shape in which all angles are right angles.”

Apparent refutation: “Here is a rectangle in which one of the angles is 85 degrees.”

Response: “This shape is not a real rectangle, since a rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral whose angles are all right angles.”

In this case, the argument is not fallacious. Although the speaker tightens the definition, the restriction is not arbitrary, because the defining property of a rectangle is precisely that all of its angles are right angles. Therefore, excluding the contradictory case (“this is not a real rectangle”) is justified and does not constitute an artificial attempt to preserve a universal claim.--Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Largoplazo --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You've created your own scenario and then made your own analysis of it, showing why it's an example of the fallacy. That, as I see it, is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Anyway, it isn't obvious to me why this is clearer than the straightforward example in the lead.

By the way, people are polite on here all the time without announcing that they're being polite. Largoplazo (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The example mentioned now does not fully explain when is the argument fallacious, and when is it, athough tightening the definition, not amounting to a fallacy. Also, the example mentioned now fails to explain fully the fallacy as a general phenomenon. Creating a "scenario" isnt OR, just as demonstrating a Modus Ponens isnt. This is simply an explanation in more thorough and reader friendly term of the fallacy, as put forward by the cited litreature. --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ve just reviewed the Modus Ponens article. By the same logic, would we also remove the examples provided there? Those examples were written to illustrate the syllogism itself. This is neither original research nor synthesis; it simply makes the sources clearer for the reader. - User:Largoplazo Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Amir Segev Sarusi, it looks like there are already multiple tags for sources at the examples sections of Modus Ponens, so at least one other editor is already asking for sources for those examples. I don't think I'd remove the ones that are there without trying to find sources for them (or finding examples that do have sources to replace them with), but this is an entire new addition that doesn't really seem clearer to me. Maybe we can discuss why you think the original expample does's fully explain? Is it the lack of a example that isn't actually an example but might be confused for an example?

Policy is not to create new sections with artificial intelligence. AI can be wrong, and without sources no one can even check. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

AI was not used to write the section but to help me better translate what I already wrote in my native language. The examples are mine, and no AI could have come up with them [you may try, but these examples demonstrate understanding of the fallacy and its uses in discourse which AI tools don't possess].

The explanation I added, which included examples but also written explanation, is nothing but an explanatory piece for a phenomenon explained in the references. The current example, though cannonical, fails to demonstrate the way this fallacy is used in general contexts, and does not fully explain when is tightening the definition ain't a fallacy. --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Great, so we need a source that shows the way the fallacy is used in general contexts and explains when tightening the definition isn't an example of the fallacy. The examples shouldn't be yours, as that would be an example of WP:Original research. We need reliable source using the examples. Probably textbooks on logical fallacies would have multiple examples we can quote. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Creating a scenario is WP:OR. You're asserting based on the authority of yourself that it's a valid example. If you justify it by explaining that you created it to conform to the definition as given in reliable sources, that's synthesis, and beyond the level of WP:2+2=4. Largoplazo (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you're both fundamantally mistaken.

OR prohibits editors from introducing new analytical claims not present in the sources. It does not prohibit formulating explanatory pieces and example aimed at accurately instantiate a definition already given in reliable sources.

My edition does not advance a new thesis in No True Scotsman fallacy. I didn't state for example that a previously unrecognised pattern is fallacious.

My edition is also not a synthesis. I'm just explain and put forward in detail the defining mechanism of the fallacy as already described in the literature and in the article itself. With my edition, the reader can better understand the bottom line: no true scotsman is essentially the idea that an arbitrary redefinition of the category in response to counterevidence is fallacious.

Calling my edition a "synthesis" or OR for it's putting forward "original examples" is essentially false. If we applied that standard, virtually all reader-friendly explanations would be doomed OR, unless they're quoted from some textbook [which, if I may, might be problematic for copyright issues]. What matters when deciding whether my edition is OR, synthesis or a warranted edition isn't a comparison to "2+2" here, but rather whether it's faithfully explaining a sourced definition [in this case, by means of instantiating].

The current example does not explain well the criterion, nor does it explain when does tightening the definition is not fallacious. That further elaboration contributes to the article, as it asists the reader in comprehending the general phenomenon.

Explaining a concept more clearly is the very opposite of OR - it's the encylopedian task. The encyclopdian ought to take the sources and put them clearly and plainly to the reader, and sometimes the explanation is by mean of instantiating. --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

We can quote small portions of text under WP:FAIRUSE. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again you've provided your analysis of your examples to explain why they properly illustrate the topic and why they're of value—and then insisted anew that it isn't your analysis, i.e., your WP:SYNTHESIS. How does a reader who doesn't already understand the topic verify that what you've written is correct? The only answer available is "Because a Wikipedia editor says so." You may say that the reader should be able to verify it for themselves from the definition, but then you'd be committing a fallacy yourself, since your premise is that the reader hasn't already had the topic explained well enough and needs further help to understand it.

You've introduced the analytical claim, created by you and not from a source, that your examples are illustrative of the topic, and at the same time noted that OR prohibits editors from introducing new analytical claims not present in the sources. Largoplazo (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe I've made my position clear and addressed the policy concenrs raised. I hope other editors will weigh in here and join the discussion. --Amir Segev Sarusi (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

"No true" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect No true has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 17 § No true until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

"NAFALT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect NAFALT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 17 § NAFALT until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)