Are you saying Wikipedia&#x27;s definition of ad hominem is wrong? It clearly says attacking a person&#x27;s character or other attribute rather than the argument itself. A person&#x27;s track record of mistakes is surely part of their character. A person&#x27;s history agreement with others is too.<p>These really aren&#x27;t compelling arguments. It&#x27;s easy to call a crank a crank and dismiss him, but it&#x27;s not easy to show why he&#x27;s wrong. skeptics won&#x27;t be satisfied with the personal attack that ignores the substance of the argument.