the fallacy thread NOW HIRING! fallacy mods!

[Mazty]

dsgrue3 said:

Mazty said:

dsgrue3 said:

Then it's anecdotal fallacy.

No it's evidence that work has used wikipedia in a reference ergo your claim that wikipedia cannot be referenced must be re-evaluated.

Also you apply this limitation, one that only applies to writing papers in some academic establishments, but no others. In otherwords, you're just being lazy and/or pedantic. 

What's the difference between reading wiki and me just dumping you all the references at the bottom of the page for you to read?

Autism and Genius have a strong correlation. Surprised you don't know this...well, in time.

It is anecdotal fallacy:

"Using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument especially to dismiss statistics"

Can't read the OP?

1 Book out of millions doesn't show anything. lmfao.

The difference between wiki and you dumping several sources is, those sources aren't open for modification by anyone other than the author(s) of the source. It's really getting tedious to attempt to convey this difference to you. Perhaps we should address this after you graduate high school?

No they don't. Please tell me what is genuis about a 20 year old who has the mental age of a 2 year old? 

No statistics have been dismissed whereas your claim that wikipedia cannot be used has been shown to be false as it has been used. What we can therefore assertain is that in an instance it has been used, whereas you were providing the unsubstantiated claim that it can't be used. 

As you never provided any proof whatsoever, it is now up to you to prove your original claim as the opposite has been provided for us. 

Those souces come straight from wiki, therefore why couldn't you get them from the wiki page yourself?
 You are just being pedantic.  Do you have any sort of mental handicap as your pedantic argument defies all sense?

It's ironic that you resort to patronising comments in a thread about fallacies...