Talk:Ad hominem

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Aristotle was the first philosopher who studied ad homimen arguments in his work Sophistical Refutations? Source: The first philosopher to draw attention to the ad hominem is John Locke (1632–1704), although he does not claim to have invented the term, and Hamblin2 attributes the idea, if not the title, to Aristotle. Here, not surprisingly, it arises in the context of dialogues. In the Sophistical Refutations (177b33), Aristotle writes with reference to an example, “this solution will not suit every argument . . . but is directed against the questioner, not against the argument.” This is in fact closer to the modern sense than what Locke subsequently introduced, since it clearly identifies the problem as a shift from a person’s argument to the person. Tindale 2007
  • ALT1 ... that ad hominem fallacies are considered uncivil? Source: "Don’t deride or attack other debaters. This is a mistake that even has its own name: the ad hominem (“to the man”) fallacy (see Appendix I). You don’t have to like the people you are debating with, let alone agree with them. You may have trouble even taking them seriously—and likely they will return the (dis)favor. You can still have some courtesy. So can they. In a way, such occasions are what civility is for." A Rulebook for Arguments By Anthony Weston Cinadon36 09:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Passed GA nomination by Cinadon36. Self-nominated.

Starting review:

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - n
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Very interesting Good Article about Rhetoric, which I enjoyed reading. The article is new and long enough, is neutral, Earwig could not detect any plagiarism, both hooks are well cited and interesting (I prefer the first one, but both are ok). The article has no picture, and QPQ is not due, since the author was until now the author of only a DYK. There are only two small issues: a missing citation in one paragraph (I put a citation needed there), and then the lead, which I think should have a short paragraph summarizing the history of the argument. Alex2006 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words Alex2006. I 've added a source and changed the text.[1]. Is it ok? Cinadon36 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, @Cinadon36: almost done :-) The first issue is solved: now you should just add to the lead a short paragraph (2 - 3 sentences) where you summarize the "History" section. The reason for that is that the lead should outline the article's content, but right now the introduction lacks any hint about the history of the concept. Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay Alessandro57 You are certainly right, is this fix adequate? Cinadon36 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is perfect, Cinadon36, good to go! Alex2006 (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Fallacies are normative

You can't say it's fallacious without qualifiers. Formal fallacies are based in whichever formal logic axioms you choose. What is a formal fallacy in classical logic may not be in intuitionist logic or even fuzzy logic. Informal fallacies are defined as outside the form which is even more normative, even subjective. They tend to be aesthetic preferences. Clearly some ad homs aren't fallacious and give more context or insight to the points. Courts use character determinations and we certainly talk about people in their historical context or any others. The article should clarify these distinctions. 1.220.224.228 (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Political attack" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Political attack has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § Political attack until a consensus is reached. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)