Talk:Name calling

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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

I have no clue what "name calling" means or denotes[edit]

after having read the first two sentences. After the third sentence it apperars that "name calling" means a "technique". The whole article does not present a definition. Hence it is impossible for sb. to judge whether a given situation "contains" name calling or not. Can sb. please incorporate

"name calling" = "to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce." (http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html)

--87.183.165.239 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling[edit]

This article is about insulting, not about name calling, because name calling is calling someone like "John come here". 62.119.28.111 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christie and lingustics[edit]

I have no idea - other than these people edited themselves into the article- why the Public mind study is singled out. Also, they may have been financed from someone but they were no linguists. Corrupt, liar, hypocrite have definite semantic meanings and there are fairly clear standards to determine whether these descriptions are adequate to use or not. I won't bother to explain each meaning, there are dictionaries. 'jerk' from my perspective has no semantic meaning other than being simply derogatory. Some people may find a specific meaning there. This 'study' was in any case deplorable for its lack of scientific rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.52.32.213 (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Name calling. 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:

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) 19:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to be renamed[edit]

Oxford, Cambridge, The Free and Merriam-Webster Dictionaries all state it's hyphenated, i.e. 'name-calling'. So, please, move the page. --Concrete Stocking (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common misconceptions - section blanked[edit]

An editor found the section confusing and not reflective of the sources cited, so wiped the section on 26 March 2021. I checked the sources, and on my reading the section says what they're saying. (Although one ref (of 5) was inaccessible at present, and may be gone: 'Ad hominem fallacy, Logical Fallacies, Formal and Informal', Independent Individualist.)

First introduced into article on 28 October 2009, it has existed in various forms until now. It may - perhaps - need attention, but I thought blanking was a bit too drastic so reverted the deletion. Improvement or discussion might be preferable, at least to start with.49.177.61.250 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]