Talk:argumentum ad crumenam
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
--Connel MacKenzie 07:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Another extant word that can easily be found with both Google and Google books that MacKenzie is too idle to check but just dumps here making work for others. 22.214.171.124 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- In English? Nope. --Connel MacKenzie 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to be, at best, a nonce objection. The expression is included in the flow of English text in many durably archived works.
- If you object to its inclusion because it is borrowed from Latin (and hence the 'English' heading is in error), would it not be more sensible just to change the language attribute? 126.96.36.199 12:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it fails that's what would happen, I would hope. DAVilla 12:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the hits in Google books, virtually all the entries have the expression either in italic, or quotation marks. From the perspective of Wiktionary, would that mean that the word is not deemed to be English (obviously it's Latin, but I mean in the sense that, e.g. "ad hominem" or "per se" qualify as "English")? House 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)