Talk:Double standard/Archives/2019
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:78F0:D3C0:32C4:62C9 in topic Double standards can be justified
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Double standard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notability
Yes, the term is widely used, but is it really notable in terms of significant coverage? How is this different from "thank you" or "you're welcome"? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Because long articles have been written about double standards in various places (ex, from google: a whole study about the application of a double standard in a specific situation [1]), and it is an important argumentative concept (in the same way that, for example, Circular reasoning is also a rather well known term and is notable because of its usage and it being an important concept). Here, you are making a False analogy, since the only element shared between the words is that they are widely used - but one is also an academic term which has an importance outside of its mere meaning. The term also appears in reliable sources used for other articles about argumentative concepts, ex.: [2] (scroll down the page) 135.23.202.24 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Double standards are a socio-economic phenomenon.
Double standards can be justified
I tell my students not to rely on stuff they find on the internet, but base their work and studies on scholarly sources and respected textbooks. And yet I regularly take a peep if I need to quickly remind myself of something and do not have "the book" at hand. The justification is that I can quickly tell if the guy on the web knows what he is talking about, whereas students are attracted to incorrect simplistic explanations like a moth to a flame. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:78F0:D3C0:32C4:62C9 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)