Talk:No true Scotsman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

More sources/less ambiguity

I'd like to see more than simply the "Internet Dictionary of Philosophy" backing up this claim as a fallacy. I can think of countless examples where "no true x would do/say/believe y" is actually quite a valid statement. For example, "no true scientist would deny the three laws of motion" or "no true physician would prescribe cyanide to cure the common cold." I'm inclined to believe that the outlier that usually catalyzes this "fallacy" is actually the fallacious argument. e.g. Christianity is bad because Hitler / Atheism is bad because Stalin. Both of these are actually fallacious citations because they are a straw man argument. At the very least this article requires a little more cleanup to indicate that the use of it is more restricted than people commonly think. Clearly with the use of national origin and other inherent traits, such as a "Scotsman" - it is a fallacy. I.E. no black man would be a Republican/no woman would be opposed to feminism/no Israeli would be in favor of a Palestinian State/etc.. However, the widespread belief regarding this fallacy is its application to situations where it may not actually be fallacious to say such a thing given that there is a rubric by which membership in the particular social taxonomy is established. "No true atheist would believe in God"/"No true Muslim would be an atheist"/etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloomingdedalus (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be clarified that the fallacy does not consist merely in using the words “No true X would Y” (or an equivalent), but rather in a ‘kicker’ (explicit or not) that excludes a counter-example from the category of “true“ Xs solely for its Y-ing. Where X is “atheist” and Y is “believe in God”, for example, the statement is not fallacious because disbelief in God is a defining characteristic of atheists; OTOH where X is “woman” and Y is “oppose feminism” there’s no such relation.—Odysseus1479 01:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Relation to stereotypes

I noticed that the article does not cover another important aspect of the NTS phenomemon: it is an example of how stereotypes work: the "no true Scotsman" in fact means that the so-and-so behaviour does not match the stereotypical image of a Scotsman. And the word "true" should be interpreted in this light: "you are a Scotsman, but you don't match a typical ("true") Scotsman; you are a white crow."

I tried to google for "true Scotsman"+"stereotype, and a couple of wikis do pop up at top of search, but I have no time for a more thorough research of reliable source. can someone? - Altenmann >t 00:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

objectivity is good, and fallacies are bad ... therefore ...

First, this article does a pretty good job of quickly bringing people up to speed on what a "No true Scotsman fallacy" is.

That being said, the article seems to presuppose that if something is not objective it is a fallacy. So if I say, "I like what Disney has done with Marvel." I am somehow committing a fallacy? And how is implying a tautology a fallacy? If all men are mortal, and I imply Socrates is mortal, am I committing a fallacy? Is this saying there is not only logic but some kind of supreme logic ettiquette talk? And a fallacy is like some kind of super faux pax?

No true Scotsman engages in sophistry !!

--66.194.17.114 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Example

A genuine example appeared after the referendum, when a supporter of Scottish Independence on the BBC Today program the day after the Scottish Independence Referendum. "No true Scotsman would have voted "No" in the referendum.

Surely this needs to be included? but I fear a backlash from Scots Will assume good faith for now. Mike Young (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What needs to happen for this to count as a quotable example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Young (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 September 2014‎

It's a genuine example of somebody saying the words, which is amusing, but it doesn't sound like an actual example of the fallacy (unless it had a preamble of "no Scotsman would have voted no" and "but my Uncle Angus voted no" or something). --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In the context of wikipedia a quotable example is an example which was quoted in reliable sources as a notable and provable example of the article subject. Otherwise it would be original research.-No.Altenmann >t 04:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It's Not a Proper Fallacy

I don't aspire to win a debate about this, but perhaps the next person who has figured this out for him/herself won't feel so very alone. The 'no true scotsman' fallacy isn't a true fallacy, -- ha ha, no pun intended. I notice, actually, some comments here about how this fallacy is much misused, and is related to stereotypes and objectivity. And this is also my point. Whether you are objective or not, whether you believe in stereotypes or not, isn't a matter of logical fallacy. Of course fallacies are bad, intolerable. And thus, the temptation to label fallacies where there is no fallacy. Begging the question, and ad hominem, these are informal logical fallacies. Considerations like 'not falsifiable' and 'ad hoc' are not matters of logical fallacy.

Let us consider the logical form:

All X are Y. (it is clearly refuted that all X are not Y) Then all true X are Y.

--This is merely a revised claim. It seems to me, that if we remember that informal fallacies are arguments, then there is no clear delineation for this fallacy. A concrete example:

All who call themselves Christians are Christians (someone calls themselves a Christian but thinks Jesus was a mythical character) Then all true Christians etc.

Here, I am clearly labeling the non-believer as being not a "true Christian", as a way to distance myself and my ingroup from that view. Why can't I do this? What if I formally excommunicate heretics, for the sake of clarity? There is no fallacy here, --in excommunication? DanLanglois (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM philosophical chat
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest to you that the fallacy arises when non-heretics are similarly excommunicated based on this distancing desire. If we define "Christian" as one who believes roughly the biblical account of Jesus, one might additionally claim "No Christian commits murders." but if a person who meets the belief-based definition commits murders after all, and we revise our claim to state that "no true Christian commits murders, we have sought to impose an exclusion of somebody who clearly falls within the class of the definition of "Christian." put logically, the argument is: All who believe in the biblical account of Jesus are Christians. (somebody believes in the biblical account of Jesus, but commits murders) Therefore that believer is not Christian. Granted the argument could be made that The behavior condemned is inconsistent with the belief proclaimed, and the person who commits such acts must be lying when they claim to hold the belief, but that is a challenge to the premise, not the promise. If it is given that the person believes as he claims, hen the exclusion is akin to conceding that all dogs are canines, but then claiming that an especially ill-behaved dog is "no true canine." DeistCosmos (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC) What exactly IS the “No True Scotsman” fallacy? Notice that you talk about what 'the exclusion is akin to', but you don't seem to allow that there is ever any legitimate instance of eliminating an object (Y) from set(X). Here is a patiently constructed example: Boris Ivanovich and Scotty McDougal are drinking tea while at a UN meeting in Brussels. Boris, a big fan of “Braveheart” finds out during their conversation that Scotty is a Scotsman. “I too,” exclaims Boris, “I’m a Scotsman!” “Are you from Scotland?” Scotty asks, “Or your parents perhaps?” “No, no of course not,” answers Boris, “I and my entire ancestry are from Russia!” “Well then,” Scotty quips, “You are no TRUE Scotsman, then!” I think it reasonably clear that this is no fallacy. Maybe if I were to say that no true Scotsman is a fan of Mel Gibon's stupid movie, this would seem to be a non-sequitur. That is, I've reached a conclusion that is not in any factual or logical way an extension of the premise. But you offer this: 'If we define "Christian" as one who believes roughly the biblical account of Jesus, one might additionally claim "No Christian commits murders."' Well, yes, in the end, I suppose that if we are going to label somebody a true Christian, then we might find it relevant to consider that person's actions, words, and expressed philosophies and professed beliefs. This is something that seems reasonable to me, but 'seems reasonable to me' does not mean that if you disagree, then somebody has failed to master basic logic. And then you offer this: 'but if a person who meets the belief-based definition commits murders after all, and we revise our claim to state that "no true Christian commits murders, we have sought to impose an exclusion of somebody who clearly falls within the class of the definition of "Christian."' Okay, then can I exclude Hitler as a 'true Christian', or not? I think there is no such fallacy, and simply I think the article can be removed. Maybe it would remain only to debunk the idea that there is any such fallacy..?DanLanglois (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Are you operating under the assumption that Hitler believed the biblical account of Jesus? If so then your fallacy is constructed as follows: All X are Y (all people who believe the biblical account of Jesus are Christians) Hitler is an X who does morally repugnant things (Hitler believes the biblical account of Jesus and does morally repugnant things) Therefore Hitler is no true Christian. If you want to dispute the premise that Hitler is an X, that by itself is not the fallacy, but simply a challenge to a premise of it. But if you acknowledge the premises, what you are doing is reaching a conclusion which cannot be reached from the premises. This is more cognizable given more sharply defined facts -- if for example all men physically born in Scotland are Scotsman by law. In that case using some other characteristic as disqualifying for Scotsmanness is invalid. Naturally this is readily applicable to religion because many religions have very low entry requirements -- declare yourself an X and the declaration makes you an X. But as soon as declared X's begin to do things embarrassing to the faith, impose a syllogistically invalid disqualification -- no true Christian (supports/opposes) gay marriage; No true Christian (supports/opposes) War in Iraq; no true Christian (supports/opposes) Israel. So ultimately it is possible for the claimant to reduce the set of people he acknowledges to be "true Christians" to himself, while continuing to maintain that all who declare Christianity are Christians. DeistCosmos (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 'Embarrassing to the faith' is a premise like any other. I've come to suspect that it is atheists who have saddled us with this. The idea is to 'embarrass' Christians by pointing out that they murder and commit suicide and otherwise act like animals so what is the point of being religious? And the response one may expect is 'no true Christian' etc. etc. 'No true Christian' fails to be a light unto the world. So the desire is to label this response a fallacy, --it's got to be ruled out of court, so that Christians will see how useless is religion. If you like the sound of this, then far be it from me to be pedantic about it. There is no harmonizing 'far be it from me to be pedantic about it', with 'are you operating under the assumption that Hitler believed the biblical account of Jesus?' 'So ultimately it is possible for the claimant to reduce the set of people he acknowledges to be "true Christians" to himself,..' --so what? But more likely, the set of people would be reduced to 'Jesus'. 'syllogistically invalid disqualification -- no true Christian (supports/opposes) gay marriage; No true Christian (supports/opposes) War in Iraq; no true Christian (supports/opposes) Israel.' -- I don't see a formal *meaning* for the phrase 'syllogistically invalid disqualification'. I've already asked for an example of a valid disqualification..? While I'm repeating myself, the article needs to be deleted. Also, the article mentions Anthony Flew as having saddled us with this. To sum up, the complain is, apparantly, about the lack of a generally accepted definition of "Christian" or "Muslim". This, you see, allows apologists to redefine the word to fit their arguments. I'm almost willing to consider categorizing this as a combination of several fallacies, because we have touched on, for starters, shifting the meaning of terms (call this— a form of equivocation) and begging the question. There's some ambiguity here, but also some presumption. The item that we've been knocking back and forth, in particular, is the statement that 'Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn'’t acting in a loving manner, therefore they can'’t really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say.' I mention begging the question, well, maybe I want to argue that abortion is wrong, and I assume that Christianity is inherently and automatically opposed to abortion. This would be begging the question. And then, I might argue that no one who supports legalized abortion — for any reason — can really be a Christian. And let's agree to call this equivocation through an ad hoc redefinition of the term “Christian”. I feel that I'm the one being agreeable, there. It seems to me, that many self-professed believers who commit bad deeds are excluded from the group, but I don't see why this can't be done. People do get excluded, -- formally, by excommunication. Or maybe by being sent to hell. Your incredulity is noted, but Argument from Personal Incredulity is actually a fallacy. But, if we are relying on ambiguity, for example in the definition of the word 'Scotsman', then fine this would be a form of equivocation. This would, again, attribute (as you have done) no value to the notion of excluding 'members' of a group from that group on the basis of their membership being undesirable. What happens if I turn this around: real atheists cannot believe in anything supernatural? This is a debatable assertion, but not I think simply a fallacy. I'm trying to guess if Richard Dawkins, for example, couldn't agree. You seem impressed by the notion that one has to accept some kind of standards that have been set up (perhaps by you), --standards for some particular scenario, and then these standards cannot be redefined. For example, by me. Or, even, by you again. But why not? Perhaps, the idea is news, that when we change our minds it is a logical paradox. This I accept. But paradox is different than fallacy. In the end, I remain most impressed with the idea that if this is a fallacy, it's a form of begging the question -- in that, to accept the argument that No True Scotsman would do X, one must accept that the definition of "True Scotsman" includes "would not do X." Example: I say that Stephen King is no true Horror writer. But here, we would feel the need for clearly-defined or generally-accepted membership standards. You see, how "Not all Boy Scouts are Eagle Scouts" is not No True Scotsman. But here I would add, that "No clean cop would take a bribe" is not fallacious. Similarly, if a religion has as two of its main precepts, "Do not drink alcohol on Friday" and "Believe that specific Book Y is absolutely true," then someone who drinks on Fridays and denies Book Y isn't really part of it. Also, it is I think clear that "No right-handed person predominantly uses their left hand" is not fallacious.. Someone who is calling themselves "right-handed" but predominantly uses their left hand either isn't telling the truth or doesn't understand the distinction between "right-handed" and "left-handed" people. I suppose that I am wary of giving too much power to people that is based on their not understanding distinctions. Indeed, I still feel that if a term is redefined because it is susceptible to multiple interpretations, and there was legitimate confusion about which was being used, then yes, this would be sloppy..But not necessarily fallacious. I remain impressed by the idea of labeling something a 'fallacy', as a ploy. Even though this ploy has been so institutionalized, it's almost a mortar. By 'ploy' I mean mantra, such a mantra that it cancels any kind of critical thought. It works like this -- suppose that I come near any sort of questioning as to one's Christian credentials. Then, the atheist says something like "I hear bag pipes playing." This is the fallacy of calling everything the no true Scotsman fallacy. But let me give the best example of 'no true scotsman' that I can think of. No true American would call for pulling out of Vietnam or whatever hopeless mess we've gotten ourselves into this decade. So this is really a composition fallacy, a false choice. A subtle example, is the way that there are those on the right who insist Barack Obama is a Muslim. And, thus, it is implied, he's not an American or worse, he's anti-American. But is hackery at its finest, a fallacy? DanLanglois (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Your wall of text misses the point. It doesn't matter if you substitute another religion or ideology or other condition -- you could have a "no true Atheist" argument just as easily -- it matters how you relay it. All dogs are born with tails. Fido was born with a tail, but lost it in an accident. And so, Fido is no true dog. An invalid conclusion, not a change in argument. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Ah, and what is the point? Not merely that all dogs are born with tails..? Which, btw, isn't true. It seems to me that this example of dogs and their tails will serve nicely. I might say that all true dogs have tails, and, let us say, that I am either right about that, or I am wrong. Either way, the premises of *my* argument, are the theses that *I* take for granted. And, whether an argument convinces me, depends wholly on whether I believe its premises, and whether its conclusion seems to me to follow from those premises. Your point is that you do not accept this, I take it? Then I'll walk through the issue with more care. Here are two questions: Are these premises true and worthy of our belief? and: Does its conclusion really follow from the premises? And, I say, that these are completely independent issues. And, whether or not an argument's premises are true is one question; but, whether or not its conclusion follows from its premises is another, wholly separate question. So - if we don't accept the premises of an argument, we don't have to accept its conclusion, no matter how clearly the conclusion follows from the premises. All of my effort has been to try to convey that just because you think an argument is bad, does not make it a fallacy. You can even be right that it is a bad argument, because there are different types of bad arguments. In particular, some are bad because their premises are false.DanLanglois (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't a forum, and article talk pages are for discussion of improving the article rather than general chats about the subject. --McGeddon (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why this is building up to "the article needs to be deleted" - disproving the first sentence of a Wikipedia article doesn't cause the whole article to disappear in a puff of logic. If it's wrong to introduce No True Scotsman as an informal fallacy, then reword that opening line. But we should check to see what the sources are calling it. --McGeddon (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed all references and sadly have to conclude that their authors are not true philosophers. Here my pun is to the point. When dealing with natural language, one should not forget that the words have inexact meanings. And this is both the power and the weakness thereof. Bearing this in mind it is easy to see that "no true Scotsman" is a catchy, but bad example of a (possible) fallacy. And that is why. One of the meaning of the word "true" is an "ideal representative. If an ideal (or a stereotype) of a Scotsman is brave, gallant, valiant sugarless porridge-eater, then all given examples are thoroughly valid in this sense. On the other hand, if "True Scotsman" is simply a person born of Scotland, then the examples are not examples of fallacies either, since both initial and amended statements are obviously wrong.

In conclusion: yes, this Wikipedia article sucks. But it sucks because sources are brainless. In other words, the article is correct per wikipedia rules. :-( And until one finds more sources, please don't waste your time on philosophy and go improve some useful articles instead. (No true Wikipedian engages in Original Research, eh?) -No.Altenmann >t 04:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not desiring to provide commentary on the article, but to improve it. It would ideally be coming from a neutral pov. Dedicated political or religious partisans, skilled and effective "soapboxers", were, I think, involved in devising the so-called no true scotsman fallacy. This is an interesting case..but also, I see above the advice to find better sources. I think this is a possibility.

There is this: http://derekpotter.x10.mx/all/articles/scotsman.htm --Including this mildly cautious statement: '..there is such a thing as a True No True Scotsman Fallacy..'.

And there is this ballistic reply: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/scotsman.htm --Titled: 'The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy' --And including this: 'The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy is a fallacy because it claims that the No True Scotsman Fallacy is a fallacy regarding Christians when it isn't.'

I'm not sure about linking simply to a blog, I'd be happier to offer the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia or something..DanLanglois (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Please note that the author does not state that Uncle Angus put the sugar on his porridge, merely that Uncle angus likes the taste of porridge with sugar.

Waynovitch

Bad Marker at top of page

Since this page does cite an external source, why does it have the marker at the top saying it doesn't ?

Additions to quote

I removed them, because they're silly. Either you know where Brighton and Aberdeen are, or you don't. If you think other people might need to know where they are or which country they're in, link to their actual pages, don't add in some weird syntax to a quote! Either way, it adds nothing to the quote, so they're gone. Feel free to make them links. Yb2 (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd already reverted this because your edit summary just referred to removing "strange additions to quote that aren't in the quote" which suggested you didn't know what the square brackets meant.

But if someone is reading this article in a print version or accessing it through a screen reader, asking them to click through to two further articles to fully understand a simple example isn't helpful. The double brackets look a little clunky and it might be neater to mention the cities' locations when introducing the quote instead, but it does not "add nothing" to explain where Brighton and Aberdeen are. --McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Really, it does add *nothing* because the cities are (a) unimportant to the logic, which is the point of the quote and the page, and (b) linkable, which is far preferable to adding "clunky" syntax. I'm well aware of what the brackets mean, but the edit summary is just that, a *summary*, and as such should remain pithy. Hence, a longer explanation here. I can see you'll just keep reverting so I'll leave it, but you haven't changed my mind one iota. Yb2 (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A reader outside Britain who doesn't know where the cities of Brighton and Aberdeen are will find it harder to understand the point of the example; it's not entirely baffling, but it's awkward enough that it's worth balancing with a slightly awkward explanation. In my opinion.

(If I've reverted you twice in as many weeks on this, it's because one edit was from an IP address removing the square - but not rounded - brackets, making the quotation inaccurate, and the other was you removing the country names with a summary that suggested you didn't understand why they were there: assume good faith.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Section: Misuse

Considering how often this fallacy is misused, specifically with regard to religious/social groups, I would like to propose a new section: Misuse, which describes the incorrect application of this fallacy as a strawman attack on the reputation of a group. I'd edit it straight in, but I don't really know how to word it, and I don't know what would be a good source - don't really want Wikipedia to link to some toxic forum debates on a philosophy page for example.

- Misuse - The no true Scotsman fallacy is often misused, particularly when applied to social or religious groups whose requirements for membership are not strictly defined. In these cases, a disreputable example is applied to a group, in order to associate negatively their behaviour with the ideals of the group, if any attempt is made by a representative of that group to distance themselves from the example, they are accused of the night true Scotsman fallacy. - end-

Personally, I think the true fallacy is to ever use self-identification as a definition for membership in anything.

Chengarda (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is sound. The "Scotsman" is born into that heritage. Membership in an organization with principles that could be broken is an entirely different matter. Go ahead and put it in. -- Glynth (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Good sources" are defined at WP:RS - as you rightly expect, forum debates aren't any use, we'd need a textbook or a published article. --McGeddon (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the example should be cleared up, as to make it clear that the alleged "misuse" is actually the correct usage of the term. It's misused when used in an attempt to logically invalidate any generalizations. I.E interpreting the phrase "Americans speak English" as "absolutely every single american speaks English" and asserting that the original statement is incorrect, since you can prove at least one american doesn't speak English, and that the no true Scotsman argument applies to attempts to clarify. With respect to religious debates, no true Scotsman absolutely applies when one argues that a particular subset of followers does not practice the TRUE version of that religion. 92.220.28.214 (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)William

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland

Why is this article within the scope of WikiProject Scotland? Just because it has Scotsman in the name, or because it uses Uncle angus as an example? It doesn't really have very much to do with Scotland. This sounds like something a web bot would do.giggle 13:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

Limiting Examples

There are some cases in which No True Scotsman is incorrectly implied. No True Scotsman generally applies to allegiances which are immutable. You can't change the fact that you're Scots, so why would one use nationality as a definition of limitation? However, I do find that being a Scotsman invokes a national identity which has limiting principles. So, one might say "he isn't worthy of that kilt" instead of "no true scotsman" which used in this sense is an expression showing reproach for a type of behaviour. Here are some other examples and thoughts on the fallacy itself:

"No true member of the chastity club has sex, because people who have sex are kicked out of the chastity club. No true member of the chastity club has sex." This, of course, really revolves around whether that statement is falsifiable. And how long does it take for the person having sex to be removed? Are members getting around the rules somehow? Is the intention of that statement to rebuff any accusations against the group's members without any real investigation?

While some religions have a secondary cultural nature, some also have a code of ethics which verbally define what it means to be a member of that religion. "Followers of Christ are Christians, Christ said not to kill people, therefore if you murder someone you are not following Christ. No true Christian is a murderer." (this is an overly generalized example; some Christian groups confirm behavior that would be considered murder by others, for example. This statement is not true on the whole.) However, when we consider identity over expectation, it can be said that many Christians commit murder. Its a matter of perspective. However, that perspective can be rhetorically manipulated.

"No true atheist believes in a god or deity", because that is the very definition of atheism. However, obviously it would be incorrect to say "no true atheist is a spiritual person", as many atheists are Buddhists and members of other non-theist spiritual groups. This is actually a good example of No True Scotsman, even among people who are aware of the fallacy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

...okay? Is there something you wanted changed in the article? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't address misapplication. Its practically a stub, anyway. But No True Scotsman is, from my experience, the most misapplied fallacy, and few people seem to understand its purpose. Simply saying "no true X does X" is not an example of the fallacy, but this misconception is perhaps the most popular misuse of the fallacy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

NTS is just a label to apply to a certain kind of fallacy, which had no name before. Just like with any words, you should not try to derive its meaning from its etymology or structure. It is just a convention. Just like from the "meaning" of the word "communism" one should not imply that everything must be common during communism, including wives. That said, NTS attracted little attention, and most what scholarly could be found about it is in wikipedia article. If you find any scholarly sources which further clarify its scope (eg which discuss what NTS is not), you are welcome to add them to the article. Otherwise you may post your comment at, e.g., the Language log forum;Wikipedia is not forum. -M.Altenmann >t 15:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to how my topic has less to do with improving the article than the general statements above about Islamic religious leaders rebuking the ISIS or the topic asking for advice on the fallacy's relationship to another fallacy, for personal study. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The article quotes itself

Reference to the article's only example is sourced by a writer who directly refers to the fact that his quote is from Wikipedia. And, indeed, the example was there before his article was published.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak01.html https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No_true_Scotsman&oldid=33234228

So, now what do we do? The article can't not have an example, right? Still, its highly abusive to regurgitate original research as an independent source. But its purported that the example is from the Anthony Flew book. So I'll just delete the self-reference. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I did some more research, and the quote seemed to have been attributed to Flew here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No_true_Scotsman&oldid=2659344 whereas the first appearance of it online appeared here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=No_true_Scotsman&oldid=270402 with the tagline 'replaced completely blank page with stubby example' as if the user made it up on the spot. I'm quite sure that is its source but I cannot be certain without reading the Flew book. Does anyone have it? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The quote is found on blogger Fredik Bendz' page in 2005, paraphrased: http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/scotsman.htm who says:

'The fallacy is usually described by the following scenario

"Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."' This same exact quote is repeated hundreds of times if searched at Google Books, and every example I've found so far claims that the book's author is making up the example on the fly. However, 1984's dictionary of philosophy does not: here --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a tag for 'please provide source text' I could put next to the source so we can look for a person who owns the book? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

{{Verify source}}, perhaps? I've reverted it per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, for now - we shouldn't explicitly attribute the quote to Flew's book if we aren't sure where it came from. (Sourcing it to the Asia Times Online seems fine for now, as the article is only presenting it as an unattributed "simple rendition".) --McGeddon (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Moving the Goalposts?

Is this related to the logical fallacy moving the goalposts? To my admittedly-inexpert eye, it certainly looks similar.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They are related in that both are ad hoc changes in an argument, typically to re-gain advantage after the fact (post hoc). They can be the same thing, but No true Scotsman involves re-defining a term ("I meant this") whereas moving the goalposts is changing the difficulty in meeting required proof. (Someone more verse in logic could probably express this more exactly that I.) / edg ☺ ☭ 16:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, but I don't think they are that related. (AFAIK) No true scotsman is not so much about ad-hoc changes to an argument, but about making arbitrary distinctions to argue against examples of the contrary. IE. If the counterargument is "No young scotsman would eat sugar", it is not an instance of no true Scotsman because the distinction is not arbitrary. If it's not about the arbitrary nature of the distinction, then then that means that any clarifition of an argument or generalization is an instance of no true scotsman. 92.220.28.214 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)William

"No country that adheres to true communism would do x" used to be a very widespread variety during the cold war, and it was sometimes discussed as a prototype case much like "no true Scotsman". Every time a red dictatorship had been unmasked, another communist country, or another variety of doctrine, became the next big thing and the next paragon: from the Soviet Union to China to Cuba, North Vietnam etc.

Essentially the same way to brush off a general criticism of the pet object, except that in the cold war example, this criticism was often more rigorously aimed at Communist thinking, political methods, a sloppy attityde to democracy etc, while "no true Scotsman" is rarely a reply against a very general and specific dig at all Scotsmen. It's more about trying to maintain that Scottish people are supposedly special. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Readability of intro

I just came to this page and thought the intro was unnecessarily complicated:

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[2]

I ran it through the readability analyzer at https://readability-score.com/text/ and it got an average of 14.3 grade level. I suggest it has room for improvement. --В²C ☎ 20:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It really is a very pompously worded intro. Surely we can say something simpler, removing words/phrases such as "counterexample" and "subject of assertion". The idea is fairly straightforward and explained much better by the porridge example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.194.126 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

ISIS isn't really Islamic

In conversation with Arianna Huffington, Queen Rania of Jordan says there is nothing Islamic about the self-proclaimed “Islamic State,” or ISIS. We also hear King Abdullah of Jordan, and Barack Obama of the United States making similar assertions, "No true Muslim..." They usually invoke the "religion of peace" platitude, but with no real logical argument as to why ISIS is not based in a bona fide Islamist ethos, or even who is the final authority as to who gets to be Islamist, and who doesn'tgiggle 13:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory.george.lewis (talk • contribs)

I second this. I think the current treatment of Islamic terrorism is perhaps the most accessible and topical way of explaining this fallacy. This is especially true of Islam, which has no global centralised hierarchy that can claim to be the font of authentic Islamic dogma. I think it should be included in the main article.--Wulfsten (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Gregory.george.lewis this is the kind of rhetoric that's been used. This is something I've been hearing frequently from many sources, even sometimes from everyday people I encounter in real life.

While I agree with User:Wulfsten as to it's relevance, I think including this example could cause a lot of problems, even disproportionate or seemingly deranged reactions, from progressives and muslims. You could do it if you wanted a bit of entertainment and heat, and the risk of being wiki-penalised.

However, if you also included the case of Christianity, the most populous "faith" in the world (Islam is the second), it may well hold. If you go to any of the many "Christian" denominations and ask if such and such a belief, statement or action was acceptable, they might say "No Christian would ever believe/say/do that. That's ungodly, an awful sin that only a heathen would do". If you then reveal that it was a self-proclaimed Christian or Christian denomination that embraced it, they might well clarify "No true Christian would ever believe/say/do that. They're obviously not really Christian. Generally, only those in our denomination can reliably be identified as genuine Christians."

Like as pointed out by the previous posters for Islam, there is no one generally accepted standard or representation of Christianity, or final earthly authority to ascertain authenticity of Christians. Indeed, "Christians" used to slaughter each other en masse in the belief that the other were "false" Christians (Roman Catholics versus Reformation Protestants), and we've still been seeing that in Islam on a smaller scale with mutual Sunni versus Shia jihadism.

So, if you include in the article the controversial "No true Muslim" example, maybe include an (counter?)example from the other side of the ideology spectrum so as to reduce the risk of wasting your time or extreme wiki-reactions. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Brighton or Sidcup?

Was just checking the Flew source given for the original quote to see whether it included the countries in brackets after "Brighton" and "Aberdeen", and the 2010 edition linked to includes a longer quotation with different wording ("Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scottish settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, "Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again".") - is there a difference between the 1975 and 2010 edition, or has this been misquoted somewhere along the line? --McGeddon (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The quotation was first added in February 2007, so can’t have come from a 2010 text. Formatting aside, the only difference from the present version is that the paper was called Press and Journal. A reference to the 1975 edition (London: Collins Fontana) was added in July 2007 (without the page number); the Glasgow Morning Herald appeared that December (unexplained). I can only see snippets of the version at Google Books—which shows me a 2008 scan of a reprint of the 1975 edition—but from a few different searches it appears that our version has been a paraphrase all along.—Odysseus1479 16:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

With a little patience I managed to piece together the relevant snippets and reconstruct what Flew actually wrote in the 1975 edition:

Imagine some Scottish chauvinist settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, 'Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again'. Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: 'No Scot would do such a thing!' Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favourite source a report of the even more scandalous on-goings of Mr Angus McSporran in Aberdeen. This clearly constitutes a counter example, which definitively falsifies the universal proposition originally put forward. ('Falsifies' here is, of course, simply the opposite of 'verifies'; and it therefore means 'shows to be false'.) Allowing that this is indeed such a counter example, he ought to withdraw; retreating perhaps to a rather weaker claim about most or some. But even an imaginary Scot is, like the rest of us, human; and we none of us always do what we ought to do. So what in fact he says is: 'No true Scotsman would do such a thing!'

It's pretty far away from what's currently in the article... 88.144.172.207 (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To the last poster, thank you for that compilation! Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing it's not confirmed above excerpt is actually correct (I don't think I've read the book, either), I'm copying the paraphrase, citation, and section [1] as it was prior to being removed today here for convienient reference. It's a lot easier to read:

Origin (section)

The introduction of the term is attributed to British philosopher Antony Flew, because the term originally appeared in Flew's 1971 book An Introduction to Western Philosophy. In his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking, he wrote:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The alternative version you've inserted directly above is not in the cited book. Have you clicked on the revised reflink in the article? Even though only snippets are shown, enough is reproduced to see that the top snippet corresponds to words I've quoted. One can use the search box to see that the alternative version does not appear in the book. It doesn't matter whether or not the alternative text is "easier to read" if it isn't in the book. Also, as the IP user points out, the whole text quoted can be reconstructed with Google search. Carlstak (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I now see, Thin Smek, that you acknowledged the above text as being paraphrase. My apologies for replying too hastily; I misunderstood your point. I think it is established that the "Scottish chauvinist" version is actually in the book, and I wanted to clarify that for anyone who might be confused by inclusion of the paraphrased version in this discussion. Carlstak (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carlstak: No, I haven't tried to verify it, but I trust you've done due diligence. I suppose if editors were at some point inclined to think the actual quote is too difficult to read for the laypeople, they might want to see the last version of what was here from 2007 to yesterday? Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Carlstak: your reply popped up as soon as I published mine! Thank you, I thought it was appropriate to add a paraphrase. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Goldman on Democratic Peace

The Goldman example as reiterated in this article badly misstates what democratic peace theory actually claims (democracies rarely use force against other democracies) and ignores that there are legitimate debates in academia about what attributes make a state a democracy and that the behavior of states which have been democracies for many decades does differ from newer democracies in important ways. These definitional debates and differences in behavior exist outside of the realm of democratic peace theory. Basically, in an attempt to show an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, the article discusses democratic peace theory very badly. (11/22/2019)

True Christian

Probably too controversial for the main page, but nevertheless an interesting instance of "no true Scotsman" can be found in the New Testament (first letter of John, chapter 3):

3:4-6 - Everyone who commits sin breaks God's law, for that is what sin is, by definition - a breaking of God's law. You know, moreover, that Christ became man for the purpose of removing sin, and he himself was quite free from sin. The man who lives "in Christ" does not habitually sin. The regular sinner has never seen or known him.

3:7-9 - You, my children, are younger than I am, and I don't want you to be taken in by any clever talk just here. The man who lives a consistently good life is a good man, as surely as God is good. But the man whose life is habitually sinful is spiritually a son of the devil, for the devil is behind all sin, as he always has been. Now the Son of God came to earth with the express purpose of liquidating the devil's activities. The man who is really God's son does not practise sin, for God's nature is in him, for good, and such a heredity is incapable of sin.

3:10 - Here we have a clear indication as to who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil. The man who does not lead a good life is no son of God, nor is the man who fails to love his brother.

I am not necessarily claiming that John here commits a fallacy, only that he firmly comes down on the pragmatic side of ethics: your acts determine whether you are good or bad. The muddle arises when we take John to say (as he seems to do) that he who commits bad deeds, was never really pure in doctrine, and yet we know many instances of people who were themselves convinced that their hearts and minds were devoted to God and Christ, and yet committed atrocities. And then we have to say they never were true Christians, that is, we have a clear parallel with the true Scotsman story. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E4FA:ECC0:C09:47D9 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like one of the counterexamples. If in fact a Christian is defined as somebody who commits no bad deeds, then a bad-deed doer is by definition not a Christian. You can't just say "no true Scotsman" to anything somebody says. Now if instead Christian was defined as "follower of Christ" and then you tried to *alter* it to "follower of Christ who does not commit bad deeds" it would be an example.Spitzak (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

No True Jew?

I'm reading an earlier (1961) work of Flew's, Hume's Philosophy of Belief, which seems to make essentially the same point, although dealing with Jews rather than Scots:

This will not do. It is like announcing that all Jews are good business men, supporting this generalization with some more or less relevant evidence, and then dismissing any suggested falsifying counter example on the ground that, no matter what the appearances to the contrary, the person in question cannot really be a Jew: because, notoriously, all Jews are good business men; which he is not.

— Anthony Flew, 1961

Is this worth inclusion? Papapyro (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If I had just bothered to read the very next paragraph after that I would have seen that he actually comes very close to giving the term in the Scotsman form, along with an explanation:

This is an intellectual misdemeanour of a common type, for which it is salutary to have some easily remembered nickname. Essentially it consists in: first presenting a generalization as a matter of universal but contingent fact, something which could without contradiction be denied (although of course the contention is that it happens to be true); and then refusing to accept as authentic any counter example suggested, and this on the sole ground that, as the original generalization is true, what is offered cannot possibly be a genuine case of whatever it is which would falsify it. Since to do this has the effect of changing what started as a contingent generalization into a pretentious tautology, true in virtue of the conventions for the (mis)use of the words employed in its expression, the move is sometimes spoken of very colloquially as going into a Conventionalist Sulk. These conventions of misuse really are arbitrary: something which, contrary to common assumption, is not the case with all conventions. Because the metamorphosis is often marked by the insertion of the words true or real to qualify the subject of the original assertion, the whole operation is also sometimes given various nicknames of the form, The No-True-Briton (or what have you)-Move.

— Anthony Flew, 1961

I think this is definitely close enough to warrant inclusion now as the first usage of the term by Flew, although I am new to Wikipedia and I'll admit I don't fully understand what counts as original research, so I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable to come along and make a decision. Papapyro (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We can say it's an early example (because that's in the source), but we can't say something like “the first” example (because that's not). (Good find.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Non-falacious uses section

Not sure what this adds to the article. Indeed, a conclusion made using faulty logic may end up being correct, but that doesn't make it not a fallacy. This section seems analogous to a section in the entry for slippery slope pointing out that some slopes are, in fact, slippery. Bmeloche13 (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Flew examples

User:Staszek Lem, why is it problematic to provide quotations of the phrase that predate Flew's usage? This is factual and may be of interest to readers. All the examples were chosen from notable authors who have Wikipedia articles, not random stuff from nobodies. @Filozofo: because they thanked me for the edit so clearly have an opinion. SpinningSpark 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This article not about phrase, but about fallacy. The examples you cite are not fallacies hence irrelevant. Sure, as you wrote, "No doubt Flew used the phrase" because he saw it. But this is your unreferenced opinion, however true it may be. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I can do my own original research, you know. While as a logical fallacy it is a good one, but the choice of its name sucks. The reason is that the word "true" has a range of meanings, and in some senses the phrase "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge" is perfectly valid in the context cited. I am not going to dwell upon this, though, only a hint: compare with: "no stereotypical Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge", "no hardcore Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge" , "no 'thoroughbred' Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge". And the dialog in question is not an example of wiggling out, but of a clarification of the intended message. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The quotes are not irrelevant. They are all examples of fallacious statements in exactly the way Flew described. They are not, of course, discussing the fallacy, they are falling into it (possibly deliberately), but they do show the phrase was already in circulation. Sure, the claim "no doubt Flew..." is an unreferenced assumption, but that could be removed without removing all the quotations. SpinningSpark 11:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Spinning: I agree! These carefully chosen examples provide important historical background and anticipate the possible misconception that the usage that gave this fallacy a memorable name has a much more recent origin. Thanks for the useful addition! Filozofo (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• "He who does not feel ths distinction to be a disgrace to his country is no true Scotsman." - how is that a fallacy? Did you read my "P.S."? There are plenty of other similar usages, such as "true gentleman/real gentleman", "real programmer", etc., which are rhetorical (of the ilk "doesn't deserve to be called a man"), rather than fallacious. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• do show the phrase was already in circulation - No true Wikipedian put such a statement into the article without a reference. No real Wikipedian add these examples into the article as this would be of dubious relevance. Surely in millions of text published the combination no+true+scotsman will pop up several times. We are not talking about a neologism, but about a rather mundane phrase. And of course, yes, it was already in circulation, where else did Dowden take the example from ?Staszek Lem (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The choice of the name is problematic and at minimum should be noted as such. Certainly in the 21st century, the fallacy as described is not an issue: the name is, and what progressives – or anyone else, we'd hope – would want to name the fallacy using such awful, such fallacious, language. 24.112.18.182 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

CinemaScholar, please turn it down a notch. WP is not here for you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about a phrase you personally do not like. As noted below, bring citations to a reliable source so it can be verified, even just one if you can find it (although my google searches turn up zilch, apparently no real Scotsman is offended), that Scottish people find the phrase offensive and it can be addressed in the article. Heiro 04:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You wish me to find a source, even though I am not a "real" Scottish person (the more modern language), and even though you claim already no source exists. Is this how Wikipedia works? BTW, there are Scottish women and men, etc. 24.112.18.182 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if you're a Scottish person or not, this is the internet. People can make up any old nonsense. That's why WP requires citations to reliable sources for verification. So provide one. That's how WP works and if you do not like it, you can leave. Heiro 04:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm Scottish, not "Scttish." Being born in Scotland is not "any old nonsense." 24.112.18.182 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on example quotes

Should the quotations of example uses of the phrase (shown below) be restored to the article.? 18:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem and Filozofo: who previously took part in the discussion. SpinningSpark 18:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Example quotations

The phrase can be found in print centuries before Flew used it to demonstrate the fallacy; Stevenson was a Scotsman, and he would have been no true Scotsman had he not been something of a moralist and theologian as well as writer of romance. — John Henry Muirhead, 1902 To the end of time, no true Scotsman shall ever hear the strains of "Scots, wha hae wi Wallace bled," without feeling his inmost soul stirred within him. — David Hay Fleming, 1887 He who does not feel ths distinction to be a disgrace to his country is no true Scotsman. — Henry Erskine, 1790 We have had proof enough of her Majesty's gracious Intentions on that Head already: Her Letter to the Parliament of Scotland last Year, and her Royal assent to the Act of Security, are such earnests of it, that no true Scotsman will presume to call it in question: And since the Parliament of England have also provisionally agreed to a Treaty, we have as little Reason to doubt their Justice when the matter is fairly laid before 'em. — George Ridpath, 1705 References

• Restore, as the editor who originally inserted them. They are all examples of a fallacious claim using exactly the phrase that is the topic of the article. SpinningSpark 18:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence from reliable sources say these quotes are related to the fallacy or at least were the source of its name (which of course would have been a valuable addition to the article). See my more detailed arguments above Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Via feedback request service, oppose including quotes unless they are directly referenced in a reliable source as an example of the falacy. Not every use of the phrase "no true Scotsman" is an example of the falacy. If they are not sourced as such an example, their inclusion is prohibited as WP:OR. VanIsaac_WS^cont 20:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Restore. This is exactly the same fallacy. Filozofo (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence from reliable sources say these quotes are related to the fallacy. That they may have been the source is not sourced or made clear either. Pincrete (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be WP:OR to connect any occurance of the phrase "no true scotsman" in literature to the fallacy. With exception of example (1) these are also quite uninteresting, since the examples only show that "no true scotsman" has been used in literature - which isn't a particularly enlightening point. --Mvbaron (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Mvbaron above. Carlstak (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - due to lack of reliable sources linking the quotes to the fallacy. Idealigic (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose without sourcing for their relevance. ISTM any of these could be a set-up for the fallacy but they don’t complete it; that is, they don’t go on to make the deduction that an individual who lacks certain characteristics, or does not hold certain opinions, cannot therefore be a “true Scotsman”. This seems to me an essential component of the fallacy, not only to make a purported characteristic out to be definitive, but to apply that definition so as to exclude specific cases that would otherwise seem to fall within its scope.—Odysseus1479 22:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support with clarification that they are not examples of the fallacy, but rather examples of the phrase. Historical use of a relatively uncommon phrase helps to illustrate what the hell it actually means, and why people would have used it. jp×g 10:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• (re:User:Spinningspark) No they are not fallacious. If they are, please provide references which say so and connect with the article subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Claiming that a Scotsman is not a Scotsman because he is not moved by a particular piece of music is clearly fallacious since he remains, in fact, a Scotsman regardless of musical tastes. SpinningSpark 19:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

    It is contestable, but not necessarily fallacious, it merely indicates that the word "true" has meanings beyond mathematical logic, just as black does not mean 0x000. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

    Compare: "Nothing more clearly indicates the true gentleman than a desire evinced to oblige or accommodate, whenever it is possible or reasonable" - Oh, really? Any gentleman that is selfish ain't no true gentleman, right? So, how many true gentlemen you find in British politics, or, better, finance? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

    That's not the same thing at all. Scottishness is an inherited property, gentlemanliness is defined by behaviour (or possibly wealth). Fleming's claim that a Scotsman is not a true Scotsman through his reaction to a piece of music is no different from Flew's example of a Scotsman not being a true Scotsman because he put sugar on his porridge. Anyway, we have already had this discussion above, the purpose of this RFC is to get new comments, not for you to turn my vote into a wall of text. Please let others have their say. SpinningSpark 22:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

    "Not a true example", eh? What is "Scottishness"? No it is not an inherited property: it is a self-identification: [2] [3]. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Given that this is the Origin section of the article, couldn't No doubt Flew used the phrase because it could frequently be found in print, and in speech, for centuries; (original research) be replaced by something like “The phrase predates Flew's usage;” (properly sourced)? Without this information, the article suggests that Flew coined the phrase by omission. I understand not writing No doubt (because there might be doubt; that's unsourced), but the phrase was obviously used before Flew used it, even if it wasn't used with this meaning. wizzwizz4 (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, the phrase was "obviously used" before, but the relevance is unclea: we cannot tell that the phrase was so common that Flew picked it for the example. Just as well he just invented the story on the fly. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, the 1966 quote "resort to the No-true-Scotsman Move" could imply that "No-true-Scotsman Move" was something already in common knowledge, but again, we don't know this. In Poland there is a similar cliche "True Pole" [polish person] (prawdziwy polak), and due to recent riots in Poland I think I will write an article on this term. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wizzwizz4: The "no doubt" construction is already removed from my proposed text above" SpinningSpark 18:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just found a WP:RS confirmation of my point that NoTS is not necessarily a fallacy; see here. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no argument that the phrase is not always fallacious. That does not mean that the examples I provided are not examples of the phrase being used fallaciously. SpinningSpark 18:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

But that means you have to provide RS telling the reader that they are fallacious. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Do the years travel in a different direction for true Scotsmen?

amazing how the term is mentioned in a book five years before its origin 4.7.25.147 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I've restored order to the Scottish timeline. Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Offensive of Term

This phrase is offensive to the people of Scotland. Many phrases of the past were, and some are sadly still in use. This article should give brief mention to the fact that this is an ethnocentric, demeaning phrase, in the same way that some phrases about the Irish etc. are still used, but are offensive in the 21st century. I realize persons not from Scotland may not see this as valid, but it should be given consideration. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to share your unsourced personal opinions. MrOllie (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Nor yours. CinemaScholar (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@CinemaScholar, what MrOllie is telling you is that if you want the article to include a mention of the term being ethnocentric and demeaning, you need to provide a reliable source that supports those assertions. We can't simply take your word for it. Valereee (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Maligning an entire country needs a citation. It isn't enough for a scholar of the 21st century to demean an entire group. A citation is needed in the other direction. Best to have a situation where the victim must have proof. Indeed, we all understand that. 24.112.18.182 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's the thing, 24. Someone else comes in and says "Nae, Scottish people think this is hilarious. We all love it! No True Scotsman would find offense!" Who do we believe? Valereee (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose maligning an entire nation is still acceptable in the eyes of some. 24.112.18.182 (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means, according to some, let ethnocentrism prevail, along with sexism and racism. Sadly, though, some of us disagree. 24.112.18.182 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Bring reliable citations that verify that this phrase is perceived by some as "racist" or "ethnocentric" or whatever, we'll wait. Other wise it's your unsourced opinion, and not germane to the editing of this article, and therefore doesn't belong on this talkpage per WP:NOTAFORUM. And deciding to switch to editing from an IP doesn't help your case any. Heiro 03:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable. Just bring in a source that says it's ethnocentrism. We'll include it. Valereee (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Best to let ethnocentrism prevail! Malign an entire country. That is the way on Wikipedia! 24.112.18.182 (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Source. It's very simple and easy. Source. Valereee (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It's even more simple. Malign and be horrible against an entire group until there's a source. We get it. After hundreds of years of discrimination, we get it. 24.112.18.182 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be in Oklahoma, Braveheart. Valereee (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Could still be a true Scotsman. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Scottish person". See Talk:No true Scotsman#Pre-Flew examples. It's not just any old nonsense, it's high grade. Heiro 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"To the end of time, no true Scotsman shall ever hear the strains of "Scots, wha hae wi Wallace bled," without feeling his inmost soul stirred within him." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us

To see oursels as ithers see us! Valereee (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee, that's all greek to me. And I remember an ANI or similar complaint on an editor who used that phrase, it didn't go anywhere. Positively Byzantine, if not Vandalism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I see what you did there Valereee (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The phrase as such parodies Scottish patriotic pride which, when viewed in historical perspective, is a somewhat insensitive taunt, to say the least. I think that much is obvious requiring no more documentation than, say, the wikipedia page on the history of Scotland. As to the degree of umbrage taken by present-day Scots, I cannot and will not speak to it. But we ought not to pretend that the phrase is squeaky clean. I'd say it sort of ranks with "Indian giver". 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:34F4:C4D7:E406:4142 (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I realize persons not from Scotland may not see this as valid, but it should be given consideration. In other words, "No true Scotsman sees this as invalid." For that, I accuse you of offense to the Scottish people.

More seriously, should we begin noting not only that the topic or title of an article is offensive but that some editor is concerned that it might be? On top of that, neither the name of the fallacy nor the example actually expresses anything pejorative. We're turning into a trigger warning culture. Largoplazo (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a bridge too far. Neither the fallacy nor the view expressed in the fallacy have anything whatsoever to do with denigrating Scotland. It just as easily could have been called the "no true Englishman" fallacy; it's pure accident that the coiner, Flew, used a Scotsman as an example instead of an Englishman, or a Liechtensteinian, or a Tongan. As for "it sort of ranks with 'Indian giver'", that's absurd. They are not comparable in any way. The latter is a racist assumption of a habit of false gift-giving by an entire set of nations of people (indigenous Americans). Even if the anon's idea that the fallacy has something to do with "Scottish patriotic pride" were correct (it's not), they still wouldn't be comparable. PS: If it said "Scotchman", there could be some kind of point to raise, since the Scots are generally not happy with this old Elizabethanism-through-Victorianism, except for "Scotch" applied to products like Scotch whisky and Scotch meat pies. But even calling the Scots the "Scotch" or "Scotchmen" is not actually a slur, it's just obsolete spelling, like referring to the Manx as "Manks" or the Irish as "Erse", or people from Belarus as "Byelorussian", or Romanians as "Rumanians" (both of the latter of which were still in fairly common usage when I was a kid; this stuff is a moving target like everything else in our language). The fact that someone somewhere for irrational reasons might get pissed off that "no true Scotsman" mentions Scotsmen is really no concern of ours. There is literally nothing that someone somewhere isn't pissed off about for irrational reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources are like gold on Wikipedia. Unsourced assertions routinely get ignored. If you cannot provide a reliable source, then go blog elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Going back to the question at hand, I tried to find a source.

I looked up the Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd edition, 2015, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001), accessible via the WP:LIBRARY at this link. The entry for Scotsman reads, in full, a male native or inhabitant of Scotland, or a man of Scottish descent. No indication that it is derogatory, or vulgar, or anything of the sort.

I search "Scotsman slur" in a general online search. No relevant hits within the first three pages.

I searched "Scotsman" in the scholarly articles published by the Edinburgh University Press (https://www-euppublishing-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/journals). There were four hits, none of which about the use of the term.

I am certainly open to someone else providing a source, but for now, I would think it is not derogatory except maybe in some very specific contexts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigraan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Redefinition fallacy

Gary Curtis ref defines no true S as a subfallacy of the redefinition fallacy. Does wikipedia have an equivalent thereof? (I was going to add this to the article but clearly not with the redlink) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC) 99.73.36.110 (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not every "something fallacy" or "fallacy of whatever" term that some random writer comes up with gains sufficient currency and independent coverage to rise to encyclopedic notice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)