Talk:Ad hominem/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article, I'm currently doing a pre-check. ComplexRational (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Overall feedback

Sorry for the slow start, this is just a tough time IRL. Anyway, here goes:

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.

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.

Specific feedback

• Do you think any additional images can be added?
  • 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 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. Cinadon36 14:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
    • 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. ComplexRational (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
      • What about this image? I am neutral. Cinadon36 08:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Aristotle (384-322 bc) was the first philosopher who distinguished arguments attacking a thesis or attacking other persons.

Why not? ComplexRational (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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.[1] Cinadon36 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Images serving this function are not uncommon, so don't worry. ComplexRational (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

References

• Aristotle, in his work Sophistical Refutations, detailed the fallaciousness of putting the questioner but not the argument under scrutiny. – I can't directly check ref 1, but ref 2 (Walton) explicitly states that ad hominem was not in Aristotle's work. Could you please clarify this, maybe elaborate on what Aristotle did describe (in the source, Aristotle distinguished between solutions directed against the man, and solutions directed against the argument.), as this would be clearer and provide useful historical context.
  • Here is what Tindale says: "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.". That is ref1 (Tindale 2007, p. 82.). Cinadon36 14:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Is there any relevant history after the mid-19th century? If so, I'd recommend including it for completeness.
  • I havent read anything worth-noting at Searching For the Roots of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem D. N. WALTON I will have a look elsewhere as well, hopefully within the Weekend. Cinadon36 14:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • A promising paper is this one, I 'll see if I can access it myself. If not, I will ask wikipedia's exchange resources.Cinadon36 09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
    • In regards to this matter, I have made these edits. Pls have a look. I feel I am obliged to thank Feminist for being so kind to pass me the specific chapter.[2].Cinadon36 12:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
      • This is much more complete, thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• Not on Walton's watch. – not entirely sure what this means
  • Reworded. Cinadon36 12:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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?" – direct quote or example, citation needed
  • Thank you, Cinadon36, now awaiting a new sourced example to demonstrate this. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @ComplexRational:I have added a new example, have a look here. Cinadon36 14:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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 ad hominem.
  • I have inserted a small phrase [3] 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, Cinadon36 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• appears after horrible events – we can agree they were horrible, but could this be worded more neutrally? ComplexRational (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Does "Calamities" sound more appropriate? [4] Cinadon36 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I worded it more neutrally, but gave an indication that it refers to such negative events as scandals and terrorism. ComplexRational (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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. – this is quite vague. Does the source elaborate at all on "sufficient reasons"?

No, when the specific passage was inserted, there was no source.[5] I removed it, as it didn't add anything significant, in my opinion.[6] Cinadon36 13:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Lastly, it should be examined... – I'd suggest a slight rewrite because "lastly" doesn't feel appropriate here.
  • Correct, changed. [7] Cinadon36 13:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
• This type of argument is also known as "argument from commitment." – citation needed
  • Sourced now. Thank you, Teishin. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• It is so powerful of an argument it has been employed in many political debates. – 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 MOS:WEASEL.

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: "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." Cinadon36 13:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It was more the emphasis of "so 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. ComplexRational (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I have employed this [8] wording. I prefer in-text attribution rather than direct quotation. Is it ok? Thanks, Cinadon36 18:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Slightly reworded. I think we're fine with this now, but I have two more quick questions on this section:

• not an easy task – same neutrality and attribution concern: according to whom, and why not?
  • removed the phrase[9]. I feel it was a bit awkward as a comment. Cinadon36 13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• statistical percentage – 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.
  •  Doing..., minor or not, you are correct, it needs rephrasing. Cinadon36 13:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Done Cinadon36 13:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

More to come later. ComplexRational (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm a little slow on this, I hope to finish in the next few days or so. ComplexRational (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Cinadon36: 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. ComplexRational (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Almost there. After one final read-through, and once these few wording issues are resolved, we're there. Thank you for your work. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: 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 meeting the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thank you for your work, and congratulations! ComplexRational (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ComplexRational for reviewing the article, for your comments and points you have mentioned. Cinadon36 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)