Talk:Ad hominem

Skip to table of contents

This is thetalk pagefor discussing improvements to theAd hominemarticle.
This isnot a forumfor general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help.

Article policies

Find sources:Google(books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs)·FENS·JSTOR·TWL

Archives:1,2:365 days

Ad hominemhas been listed as one of thePhilosophy and religion good articlesunder thegood article criteria.If you can improve it further,please do so.If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassessit.
Review:April 24, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Ad feminamwas nominated fordeletion.The discussionwas closed on17 August 2011with a consensus tomerge.Its contents weremergedintoAd hominem.The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history;for its talk page, seehere.

Philosophy:LogicMid‑importance

This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy,a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophyon Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussionabout philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated asMid-importanceon theproject's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

SkepticismHigh‑importance

	This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism,a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistoryandskepticismrelated articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussionand see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
High	This article has been rated asHigh-importanceon theproject's importance scale.

This article has beenmentioned by a media organization:

The Huffington Post staff (June 30, 2009)."FAQ: Comments & Moderation".The Huffington Post.

A fact fromAd hominemappeared on Wikipedia'sMain Pagein theDid you knowcolumn on 16 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that thefallacyof usingad hominemarguments was first discussed byAristotlein hisSophistical Refutations?

A record of the entry may be seen atWikipedia:Recent additions/2020/May.The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Ad hominem.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 asthis nomination's talk page,the article's talk pageorWikipedia 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:promotedbyCwmhiraeth(talk)06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

)

... thatAristotlewas the first philosopher who studiedad homimenargumentsin his workSophistical 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... thatad hominemfallaciesare considereduncivil?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 WestonCinadon 36 09:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passed GA nomination by Cinadon36. Self-nominated.

Starting review:

General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:- n
Neutral:
Free ofcopyright violations,plagiarism,andclose 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 acitation neededthere), 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)[reply]

Thanks for your nice wordsAlex2006.I 've added a source and changed the text.[1].Is it ok?Cinadon36 09:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry for the long delayAlessandro57You are certainly right, isthisfix adequate?Cinadon36 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arthur Schopenhauer[edit]

and hisart of being rightis missing conspicously from this article.46.232.229.52(talk)16:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clearly its absence is a conspiracy from big adhom to leave us plebs without the divine knowledge of how to do the opposite of losing arguments

...or not. seems it's been in the article for a good while now, under "see also"cogsan•(give me attention)•(see my deeds)20:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]