779:"In any of the kinds of conversational frameworks in which people reason with each other, despite the opposition and partisanship characteristic of many kinds of dialogue, there must also be a presumption that in order to achieve collaborative goals, participants must observe rules of polite conversation. Arguers must be able to trust each other, to some extent at least, to be informative and relevant, to take turns politely, and to express their commitments clearly and honestly. Without this kind of collaboration in contributing to a dialogue, argument, of a kind that uses reasoning to fulfill its goals of dialogue interaction, would not be possible. For these reasons, attacking the other party’s honesty or sincerity in argument is a powerful move. Such an argument leads one to the conclusion that such a person lacks credibility as an arguer who can be trusted to play by the rules. This argument is so powerful because it suggests that such a person cannot ever be trusted and that therefore whichever argument they use, it may simply be discounted as worthless. Thus the person attacked cannot meaningfully take part in the dialogue any longer, no matter how many good arguments they seem to have. Because they are so powerful and dangerous, ad hominem arguments have often been treated in the past as fallacious. Their use in negative campaign tactics in political argumentation is notorious. But they can sometimes be reasonable arguments. For example, in legal argumentation in a trial, it can be legitimate for a crossexamining attorney to question the ethical character of a witness. The lawyer may even argue that the witness has lied in the past and use this argument to raise questions about his character for honesty. But before we can evaluate such ad hominem arguments, it is necessary to know what form they take."
386:"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."
262:
888:
42:
206:
I 've searched at commons using various keywords but nothing popped up. I have seen no image or illustration in any of the books I have read. Maybe we can add a photo of
Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, Galileo or John Locke. That would be a little bit cliche, but on the hand, it will help us address the
1003:
I think we're set now, this addresses all my neutrality concerns (4) and it seems in good shape as far as balancing detail with comprehensiveness (nothing is egregiously missing as far as I can tell) (3), sourcing (2), layout, and diction (1). I find nothing else major that would hold this up from
187:
Overall, the prose appears to be in pretty good shape, and a quick check of the sources does not raise any questions. I had to do a little copyediting, (I may continue still) and a few sources and statements need checking, but nothing that can't be handled over the course of this review.
191:
There are no copyright concerns in the text, and the one image is properly licensed PD. This satisfies criteria 2d and 6b. The article is quite stable, the only significant changes have been polishing the article for GAN. So criterion 5 is satisfied.
207:
issue no images. Have in mind that I am a bit of deletionist, so my thought is: will an image of
Aristotle or someone else, will help the reader comprehend the topic better? I am not too positive on that. I 'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
801:
powerful" that caught my attention, but the source is in agreement. I think this could be resolved by pulling a direct quote, or describing it as an agreed-upon opinion rather than suggesting (in normal article text) that it is a fact.
964:
I posted a few more things. So far, it's in pretty good shape as far as reliability of sources and broad coverage; I'll do another check for language and neutrality, and then it's only a few minor things before passing.
764:– citation specifically needed for this, and needs a little rewording: "powerful" seems quite non-neutral unless there are sources clearly agreeing on this, and "many" is better quantified or explained concretely per
223:
I'm with you in that I wouldn't include images just for the sake of including them, so I'd only really urge an additional image if there is a highly influential figure, work, or concept that can be illustrated.
673:
For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious.
292:
Well, I usually ask myself, "why should this be included?" Maybe it is just I do not like reinforcing the stereotype that "It all began with the Greeks". Anyway, I have just added it.
776:
Walton (2005) in his opening paragraph when discussing Ad
Hominem arguments uses the term "powerful" 3 times. Should we change the word? I dont know how.... Here 's what he says:
533:
An example of this fallacy could be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters
Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"
589:
I think it would be helpful to add a one- or two-sentence description of guilt by association (a summary of that article's lead, maybe), before explaining how it relates to
80:
70:
47:
436:
881:– this is minor, but I think it could be reworded to not suggest that there is a numerical value, especially since the source does not use this term.
355:
156:
370:
Aristotle, in his work
Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny.
126:
75:
979:
Almost there. After one final read-through, and once these few wording issues are resolved, we're there. Thank you for your work.
52:
122:
378:
Aristotle distinguished between solutions directed against the man, and solutions directed against the argument.
107:
376:
was not in
Aristotle's work. Could you please clarify this, maybe elaborate on what Aristotle did describe (in the source,
265:
Aristotle (384-322 bc) was the first philosopher who distinguished arguments attacking a thesis or attacking other persons.
99:
653:
I worded it more neutrally, but gave an indication that it refers to such negative events as scandals and terrorism.
600:
but I am not sure if this is what you had in mind. I feel it is kind of a repeat. Might be useful though. Thanks,
1009:
984:
970:
948:
933:
807:
749:
658:
626:
548:
487:
315:
283:
229:
170:
150:
407:
Is there any relevant history after the mid-19th century? If so, I'd recommend including it for completeness.
835:
Slightly reworded. I think we're fine with this now, but I have two more quick questions on this section:
1020:
1005:
980:
966:
944:
929:
803:
745:
654:
622:
559:
544:
483:
311:
279:
225:
166:
146:
1029:
915:
900:
865:
825:
787:
720:
692:
643:
606:
574:
519:
472:
445:
421:
394:
300:
244:
213:
432:
261:
1004:
meeting the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thank you for your work, and congratulations!
115:
17:
412:
1024:
998:
959:
910:
895:
860:
820:
782:
715:
687:
638:
601:
569:
540:
514:
467:
440:
416:
389:
295:
239:
208:
887:
819:
wording. I prefer in-text attribution rather than direct quotation. Is it ok? Thanks,
460:
741:
762:
It is so powerful of an argument it has been employed in many political debates.
675:– this is quite vague. Does the source elaborate at all on "sufficient reasons"?
943:
Sorry I'm a little slow on this, I hope to finish in the next few days or so.
765:
708:– I'd suggest a slight rewrite because "lastly" doesn't feel appropriate here.
92:
1023:
for reviewing the article, for your comments and points you have mentioned.
621:– we can agree they were horrible, but could this be worded more neutrally?
184:
Sorry for the slow start, this is just a tough time IRL. Anyway, here goes:
310:
Looks good. Images serving this function are not uncommon, so don't worry.
852:– same neutrality and attribution concern: according to whom, and why not?
372:– I can't directly check ref 1, but ref 2 (Walton) explicitly states that
1034:
1013:
988:
974:
952:
937:
920:
870:
830:
811:
792:
753:
725:
697:
662:
648:
630:
611:
579:
552:
524:
491:
477:
450:
426:
399:
319:
305:
287:
249:
233:
218:
174:
160:
413:
415:
I will have a look elsewhere as well, hopefully within the
Weekend.
684:
I removed it, as it didn't add anything significant, in my opinion.
165:
I'll take a look at this article, I'm currently doing a pre-check.
734:
This type of argument is also known as "argument from commitment."
380:), as this would be clearer and provide useful historical context.
260:
681:
No, when the specific passage was inserted, there was no source.
543:, now awaiting a new sourced example to demonstrate this.
435:, I 'll see if I can access it myself. If not, I will ask
907:
857:
817:
713:
685:
682:
636:
598:
565:
510:
464:
456:
293:
134:
103:
894:, minor or not, you are correct, it needs rephrasing.
463:for being so kind to pass me the specific chapter.
459:. Pls have a look. I feel I am obliged to thank
202:Do you think any additional images can be added?
8:
859:. I feel it was a bit awkward as a comment.
635:Does "Calamities" sound more appropriate?
535:– direct quote or example, citation needed
30:
354:sfn error: no target: CITEREFwalton2001 (
564:I have added a new example, have a look
482:This is much more complete, thank you.
455:In regards to this matter, I have made
411:I havent read anything worth-noting at
388:. That is ref1 (Tindale 2007, p. 82.).
342:
61:
33:
878:
849:
778:
761:
733:
705:
672:
618:
532:
503:
377:
369:
349:
238:What about this image? I am neutral.
7:
506:– not entirely sure what this means
24:
886:
706:Lastly, it should be examined...
597:I have inserted a small phrase
437:wikipedia's exchange resources
1:
797:It was more the emphasis of "
619:appears after horrible events
384:Here is what Tindale says:
1051:
1035:20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1014:19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
989:18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
975:18:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
953:21:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
921:13:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
905:13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
871:13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
831:18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
812:20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
793:13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
726:13:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
698:13:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
663:19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
649:18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
631:14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
612:13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
525:12:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
492:20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
478:12:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
451:09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
320:14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
306:13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
288:18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
250:08:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
234:21:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
938:17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
816:Hm, I have employed this
754:16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
580:14:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
553:16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
427:14:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
400:14:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
219:14:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
175:18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
161:18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
740:Sourced now. Thank you,
879:statistical percentage
504:Not on Walton's watch.
266:
431:A promising paper is
264:
928:More to come later.
856:removed the phrase
712:Correct, changed.
267:
781:
736:– citation needed
196:Specific feedback
89:
88:
1042:
1002:
963:
890:
850:not an easy task
777:
563:
360:
359:
347:
180:Overall feedback
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1021:ComplexRational
1006:ComplexRational
996:
981:ComplexRational
967:ComplexRational
957:
945:ComplexRational
930:ComplexRational
804:ComplexRational
746:ComplexRational
655:ComplexRational
623:ComplexRational
560:ComplexRational
557:
545:ComplexRational
484:ComplexRational
365:
364:
363:
353:
348:
344:
312:ComplexRational
280:ComplexRational
226:ComplexRational
198:
182:
167:ComplexRational
147:ComplexRational
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Ad hominem
12:
11:
5:
1048:
1046:
1038:
1037:
994:
993:
992:
991:
955:
926:
925:
924:
923:
875:
874:
873:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
771:
770:
758:
757:
756:
730:
729:
728:
701:
700:
678:
677:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
616:
615:
614:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
529:
528:
527:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
429:
404:
403:
402:
362:
361:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
197:
194:
181:
178:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1047:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1000:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
961:
956:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
922:
919:
918:
914:
913:
909:
906:
904:
903:
899:
898:
893:
889:
884:
883:
882:
880:
876:
872:
869:
868:
864:
863:
858:
855:
854:
853:
851:
847:
846:
834:
833:
832:
829:
828:
824:
823:
818:
815:
814:
813:
809:
805:
800:
796:
795:
794:
791:
790:
786:
785:
780:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
719:
718:
714:
711:
710:
709:
707:
703:
702:
699:
696:
695:
691:
690:
686:
683:
680:
679:
676:
674:
670:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
647:
646:
642:
641:
637:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
613:
610:
609:
605:
604:
599:
596:
595:
594:
592:
587:
581:
578:
577:
573:
572:
567:
561:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
534:
530:
526:
523:
522:
518:
517:
512:
509:
508:
507:
505:
501:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
475:
471:
470:
465:
462:
458:
454:
453:
452:
449:
448:
444:
443:
438:
434:
430:
428:
425:
424:
420:
419:
414:
410:
409:
408:
405:
401:
398:
397:
393:
392:
387:
383:
382:
381:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
357:
351:
346:
343:
339:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
304:
303:
299:
298:
294:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
263:
251:
248:
247:
243:
242:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
222:
221:
220:
217:
216:
212:
211:
205:
204:
203:
200:
199:
195:
193:
189:
185:
179:
177:
176:
172:
168:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
1030:
1025:
995:
927:
916:
911:
901:
896:
891:
885:
877:
866:
861:
848:
826:
821:
798:
788:
783:
760:
732:
721:
716:
704:
693:
688:
671:
644:
639:
607:
602:
590:
588:
575:
570:
531:
520:
515:
502:
473:
468:
446:
441:
422:
417:
406:
395:
390:
385:
373:
368:
345:
337:
301:
296:
245:
240:
214:
209:
201:
190:
186:
183:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
539:Thank you,
457:these edits
350:walton 2001
104:visual edit
1019:Thank you
766:MOS:WEASEL
591:ad hominem
374:ad hominem
338:References
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
999:Cinadon36
960:Cinadon36
541:Cinadon36
352:, p. 208.
278:Why not?
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
892:Doing...
511:Reworded
461:Feminist
433:this one
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1026:Cinadon
912:Cinadon
897:Cinadon
862:Cinadon
822:Cinadon
784:Cinadon
742:Teishin
717:Cinadon
689:Cinadon
640:Cinadon
603:Cinadon
571:Cinadon
516:Cinadon
469:Cinadon
442:Cinadon
418:Cinadon
391:Cinadon
297:Cinadon
241:Cinadon
210:Cinadon
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
1010:talk
985:talk
971:talk
949:talk
934:talk
908:Done
808:talk
750:talk
659:talk
627:talk
566:here
549:talk
488:talk
356:help
316:talk
284:talk
230:talk
171:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1031:36
1012:)
987:)
973:)
951:)
936:)
917:36
902:36
867:36
827:36
810:)
799:so
789:36
752:)
744:.
722:36
694:36
661:)
645:36
629:)
608:36
576:36
568:.
551:)
521:36
513:.
490:)
474:36
447:36
423:36
396:36
318:)
302:36
286:)
246:36
232:)
215:36
173:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1008:(
1001::
997:@
983:(
969:(
962::
958:@
947:(
932:(
806:(
768:.
748:(
657:(
625:(
593:.
562::
558:@
547:(
486:(
466:.
439:.
358:)
314:(
282:(
228:(
169:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.