1231:
dispute in East Asia. Note that your example table would be equally unacceptable if it were about the price of fruit, the founding of
Knowledge, the intricacies of evolution, or any other topic, because none of these things have anything to do with the philosophical idea of "counterargument." It is more problematic than those with respect to your editing on Knowledge, because I don't think you picked this example arbitrarily. Does that more clearly address your question? If not, I really don't understand what you are asking.
649:
433:. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a textbook or how-to guide. Thus, we generally do not provide examples of topics, with a few small exceptions (math and computer programming, both of which have details which are hard to explain outside of their own peculiar language are the two I recall at the moment). And if, for some reason, editors at this page felt that an example was reasonable, it most certainly could not be one on such a controversial subject.
178:
22:
426:: "A coatrack article is a Knowledge article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there."
588:
that information. Then you added it here, to a wholly unrelated topic. Those documents push a very strong POV--they are specifically selected to demonstrate ownership of a group of
Senkaku Islands by a particular country. They do not place the debate in context, they do not provide the other sides' perspectives; instead, they exist wholly to support one POV.
80:
53:
90:
744:
Including them here, where they do not belong (see below) is clear evidence of trying to push a point of view. This exactly meets the definition in the opening paragraph of WP:COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a
Knowledge article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover
1230:
Having said that, what does "counterargument" have to do with a set of documents about the
Senkaku Islands? Keep in mind, as I've said several times, that we don't include examples. I see no connection between a rhetorical concept and some historical documents about a political/economic/geographic
1116:
All that table (the one above this), is you saying a whole bunch of times that you disagree with my position. I have stated explicitly and clearly why this is an unambiguous violation of 2 different core policies; you have not addressed either of those points other than to just state that my claims
587:
If you can't see how this is coatracking, then I'm not sure what I can say that will convince you. You attempted to add this table to
Foreign relations of Japan, and were told by an admin that it could not go there, in a topic that is at least distantly related, because it would give undue weight to
421:
weight to that information. Then you added it here, to a wholly unrelated topic. Those documents push a very strong POV--they are specifically selected to demonstrate ownership of a group of
Senkaku Islands by a particular country. They do not place the debate in context, they do not provide the
868:
Furthermore, we know for certain that this information does not belong here because it violates WP:NOT. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a textbook or how-to guide. Thus, we generally do not provide examples of topics, with a few small exceptions (math and computer programming, both of which have
1226:
Alright...I'll try. A counterargument is a rebuttal, an argument responding to another, already made argument. It is a terminology used in debate or logic. It is an abstract concept used to define a certain portion of a larger dispute between two or more actors. I don't claim to have a precise
1000:
I can only conclude that you brought this set of documents here because it was rejected at
Foreign relations of Japan, where you added it only because the Senkaku articles were locked (and you'd face difficulty getting this into the article because of the strong battleground mentality going on
869:
details which are hard to explain outside of their own peculiar language are the two I recall at the moment). And if, for some reason, editors at this page felt that an example was reasonable, it most certainly could not be one on such a controversial subject.
745:
for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there."
1140:
If you decline to create even one sentence with the term in it, then I don't see how you can be said to have engaged the subject of the article or the subject of the table. If you fail to acknowledge any element or aspect of the table, what are we to make of
422:
other sides' perspectives; instead, they exist wholly to support one POV. Including them here, where they do not belong (see below) is clear evidence of trying to push a point of view. This exactly meets the definition in the opening paragraph of
1356:
Side note: I took out the "under construction" template because the article is no longer receiving regular, significant changes. If there comes a time when someone starts working on it again in earnest, then the tag can be replaced.
1319:
IMO, the connection between the rhetorical concept and the historical documents is explicit; and I do not know what to do next? I don't know what to make of the phrase "philiosophical idea of 'counterargument'"?
238:
1376:). While it is better to post a polished draft with more information, what Tenmei was doing is not entirely out of the norm. I'd say you should've waited a week before deleting his table.
1252:
begins. Before this, I could only guess about the specific, related points you now decide to identify. We confirm that we are "on the same page" when I repeat and underscore your words:
440:, where you added it only because the Senkaku articles were locked (and you'd face difficulty getting this into the article because of the strong battleground mentality going on there).
1272:"... example table would be equally unacceptable if it were about the price of fruit, the founding of Knowledge, the intricacies of evolution, or any other topic, because
111:
on
Knowledge. 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 the
358:. This is an apparently necessary part of an article which was previously unsourced; and it is highly relevant that this specific term is prominently featured at
1101:
Is it possible that the emotion which seems to infuse your prose is a mistake? Could it be that you perceive a problem with something that just isn't there? --
1405:
148:
138:
1400:
1415:
383:. Therefore, it is not beyond your abilities to explain your editing decision in different words. This context requires something more than
113:
1200:
Your user page explains that you have a MA in
Rhetoric; and this makes it difficult to construe an inability to make yourself understood. --
623:
NOTE: The simple fact that the prose is separated into subject groups becomes a kind of "proof" that I did engage the words and opinions.
217:
413:
If you can't see how this is coatracking, then I'm not sure what I can say that will convince you. You attempted to add this table to
1420:
1410:
384:
242:
362:. The term appears to be one which is neither acknowledged nor valued by you -- except in terms of this non-controversial table.
103:
58:
265:, as in "not a textbook" and "not a how-to guide). This addition is POV pushing, Coatracking, and just overall bad editing.
417:, and were told by an admin that it could not go there, in a topic that is at least distantly related, because it would give
1227:
understanding of the term, so I'm going off of what is said in the article and on my general understanding of the concept.
1145:
359:
33:
1095:
185:
63:
437:
414:
390:
On the other hand, if you are unable or unwilling, this would be a good time to state it frankly and directly. --
221:
1195:
21:
261:
to advance a position about a wholly unrelated issue. Furthermore, Knowledge does not do "examples" (see
1381:
1249:
1152:
370:
39:
648:
210:
Why does "no u" even exsist? It is a wrong spelling of a childish argument that nobody needs to know.
234:
213:
369:. Your credibility is insufficient to support a this evaluation. More is needed in the context of
1362:
1347:
1236:
1122:
1091:
1087:
Your overarching objection seems to focus on issues unrelated to what the table mildly presents.
445:
423:
270:
258:
429:
Furthermore, we know for certain that this information does not belong here because it violates
352:. If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that everyone can understand.
95:
1372:
To be fair, some of the science pages out there are developed bit by bit like this (like the
1377:
1373:
1325:
1205:
1106:
395:
332:
436:
I can only conclude that you brought this set of documents here because it was rejected at
1191:
1187:
1135:
653:
475:
470:
418:
316:
1274:
none of these things have anything to do with the philosophical idea of 'counterargument'
289:→Counterexample: Please see WP:COATRACK. It's unbelievable that you would add this here.
177:
1394:
1358:
1343:
1232:
1179:
1156:
1131:
1118:
660:
578:
523:
503:
466:
441:
430:
376:
345:
320:
284:
266:
262:
1268:
None of these things have ... to do with the philosophical idea of 'counterargument'
656:" is the intersection of material which is reasonable for inclusion in this article.
1198:, and only one of us is trying to move beyond the impasse you and you alone create.
1321:
1201:
1102:
391:
328:
652:
Three lines suggest different sets of overlapping, relevant information. The "
1183:
312:
108:
85:
311:
of the table is demonstrated by the diff above. This diff is inadequate as
231:--Ah, let me educate thou, "No u" is a meme and should be known as such.
380:
1385:
1366:
1351:
1329:
1262:
no connection between a rhetorical concept and some historical documents
1240:
1209:
1126:
1110:
449:
399:
336:
274:
246:
225:
1256:
No connection between a rhetorical concept and ... historical documents
324:
107:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
1342:
What is the logic behind having a table with no information in it?
1148:. In effect, you refuse to acknowledge the vocabulary of a process.
79:
52:
1085:
If I have misconstrued one of more sentences, please point it out.
663:
perceives the table to be outside this "feasible region", but why?
647:
1144:
You contradict; but this exludes everyone from any constructive
1283:
1165:
298:
15:
984:
852:
728:
563:
176:
1264:
about a political/economic/geographic dispute in East Asia.
1288:-- these shared words admit sufficient justification for
1308:
1294:
527:
387:. Now would be a good time to use your writing skills.
280:
1248:
Thank you. In the diff above, a meaningful process of
469:-- in the diff above, no sentence appears to address
257:Editors may not use this or any other article as a
159:
379:-- Your user page announces that you have a MA in
1090:In other words, I do not see how your imagined
8:
327:is without explanation or other support. --
497:
232:
156:
47:
19:
1309:investing time in this talk page thread
49:
1190:based on the table itself rather than
117:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
7:
239:2601:341:300:59C0:A143:5208:4032:48D
101:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1406:Low-importance Philosophy articles
1138:is unacknowledged and unmentioned.
14:
1029:hypothesis unsupported by table
901:hypothesis unsupported by table
769:hypothesis unsupported by table
123:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
88:
78:
51:
20:
617:hypothesis unsupported by table
143:This article has been rated as
126:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
1401:Stub-Class Philosophy articles
1:
1416:Low-importance logic articles
450:21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
400:17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
337:17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
275:07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
1178:of the table is proven when
226:13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
1096:Category:Informal arguments
385:WP:Escalating alphabeticals
1437:
438:Foreign relations of Japan
415:Foreign relations of Japan
149:project's importance scale
1421:Logic task force articles
1411:Stub-Class logic articles
1386:22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1367:21:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1352:21:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1330:05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
1241:03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
1210:03:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
1127:02:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
1111:00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
522:Proof of engagement with
502:Proof of engagement with
367:not "overall bad editing"
247:17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
184:
155:
142:
73:
46:
1146:issue clarifying process
319:. It is, in fact, mere
283:07:21, 28 February 2011
1196:talking past each other
480:subject of this article
160:Associated task forces:
1182:'s diffs show neither
664:
506:'s words in diff above
181:
104:WikiProject Philosophy
28:This article is rated
1250:collaborative editing
1153:collaborative editing
651:
484:subject of this table
371:collaborative editing
360:WP:Dispute resolution
180:
1117:are "unsupported."
610:Mistaken assumptions
1194:opinions. This is
129:Philosophy articles
1092:working hypothesis
1001:there). </small
665:
182:
114:general discussion
34:content assessment
1170:-- The objective
1075:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1019:
1008:
1003:
1002:
943:
942:
891:
890:
878:
877:
871:
870:
811:
810:
747:
746:
687:
686:
590:
589:
526:'s words in diff
356:not "coatracking"
350:not "POV pushing"
303:-- The objective
249:
237:comment added by
216:comment added by
203:
202:
199:
198:
195:
194:
191:
190:
96:Philosophy portal
1428:
1374:Olfactory System
1018:
1005:
999:
998:
985:
889:
888:
874:
873:
867:
866:
853:
743:
742:
729:
586:
585:
564:
498:
478:is the explicit
228:
167:
157:
131:
130:
127:
124:
121:
98:
93:
92:
91:
82:
75:
74:
69:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1391:
1390:
1340:
1311:
1297:
1286:
1192:outside the box
1188:counterargument
1168:
1155:; this is only
1136:counterargument
1076:
654:feasible region
507:
476:Counterargument
471:counterargument
348:-- No, this is
317:counterargument
301:
287:(4,214 bytes) (
255:
211:
208:
165:
128:
125:
122:
119:
118:
94:
89:
87:
67:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1434:
1432:
1424:
1423:
1418:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1393:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1307:
1303:
1295:adding a table
1293:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1270:
1265:
1258:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1164:
1161:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1028:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1004:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
900:
898:
892:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
876:
872:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
768:
766:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
748:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
659:
657:
643:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
622:
620:
619:
618:
616:
614:
612:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
591:
583:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
531:
509:
508:
501:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
434:
427:
406:
405:
404:
403:
340:
339:
297:
293:
292:
254:
251:
207:
204:
201:
200:
197:
196:
193:
192:
189:
188:
183:
173:
172:
170:
168:
162:
161:
153:
152:
145:Low-importance
141:
135:
134:
132:
100:
99:
83:
71:
70:
68:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1433:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1396:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1337:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1310:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1285:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1167:
1162:
1160:
1158:
1157:contradiction
1154:
1149:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1006:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
875:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
749:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
662:
655:
650:
646:
645:
644:
641:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
613:
611:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
592:
584:
582:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
532:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
505:
500:
499:
487:
485:
481:
477:
472:
468:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
428:
425:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
402:
401:
397:
393:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
372:
368:
363:
361:
357:
351:
347:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:contradiction
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
300:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
252:
250:
248:
244:
240:
236:
229:
227:
223:
219:
218:148.83.132.62
215:
205:
187:
179:
175:
174:
171:
169:
164:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
140:
137:
136:
133:
116:
115:
110:
106:
105:
97:
86:
84:
81:
77:
76:
72:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1355:
1341:
1306:
1299:
1292:
1281:
1273:
1267:
1261:
1255:
1229:
1225:
1199:
1175:
1171:
1163:
1151:This is not
1150:
1143:
1139:
1134:-- the term
1100:
1089:
1086:
642:
609:
577:
483:
479:
474:
389:
375:
366:
365:No, this is
364:
355:
354:No, this is
353:
349:
308:
304:
296:
288:
256:
233:— Preceding
230:
209:
144:
112:
102:
40:WikiProjects
1378:Bobthefish2
1338:Blank table
1094:relates to
424:WP:COATRACK
259:WP:COATRACK
253:Coatracking
212:—Preceding
1395:Categories
1184:refutation
1172:usefulness
313:refutation
305:usefulness
120:Philosophy
109:philosophy
59:Philosophy
30:Stub-class
1300:initially
1176:necessity
309:necessity
1359:Qwyrxian
1344:Qwyrxian
1233:Qwyrxian
1180:Qwyrxian
1132:Qwyrxian
1119:Qwyrxian
661:Qwyrxian
581:'s words
579:Qwyrxian
524:Qwyrxian
504:Qwyrxian
482:and the
467:Qwyrxian
442:Qwyrxian
381:rhetoric
377:Qwyrxian
346:Qwyrxian
323:. This
285:Qwyrxian
267:Qwyrxian
235:unsigned
214:unsigned
325:opinion
147:on the
1322:Tenmei
1260:I see
1202:Tenmei
1103:Tenmei
1027:No --
899:No --
767:No --
615:No --
431:WP:NOT
392:Tenmei
329:Tenmei
263:WP:NOT
36:scale.
658:-----
528:above
419:undue
186:Logic
64:Logic
1382:talk
1363:talk
1348:talk
1326:talk
1305:(b)
1291:(a)
1237:talk
1206:talk
1186:nor
1174:and
1123:talk
1107:talk
446:talk
396:talk
333:talk
307:and
281:diff
271:talk
243:talk
222:talk
206:No U
1302:and
1284:QED
1166:QED
1141:it.
315:or
299:QED
139:Low
1397::
1384:)
1365:)
1350:)
1328:)
1320:--
1276:."
1239:)
1208:)
1125:)
1109:)
530:}}
448:)
398:)
335:)
273:)
245:)
224:)
166:/
62::
1380:(
1361:(
1346:(
1324:(
1313:.
1235:(
1204:(
1159:.
1121:(
1105:(
1098:?
486:.
473:.
444:(
394:(
373:.
331:(
291:)
269:(
241:(
220:(
151:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
