Talk:Argumentation theory

Toulmin
An editor has wondered whether Toulmin is given undue space in the essay and whether this material should be merged with the Toulmin page. Regarding the first q, he is the field'd discussion of the ideas of giant. There is no one of eaqual stature and his ideas are used by virtually everyone. As for the second question, some of this material was plainly taken from the Toulmin entry. But given Toulmin's stature in the field, this material, in my judgment, ought to remain. 136.165.77.101 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comment that Toulmin is the field's giant and the material ought to remain. 136.165.77.101 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Toulmin material is duplicative with parts of the essay on Toulmin, but his influence on argumentation has been enormous. The editor's concern is well-taken, but the above comments are valid. The material should remain.Rexroad2 (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to enter more extended discussions of the ideas of David Zarefsky, Daniel J. O'Keefe, Dale Hample, and in general the informal logicians Rexroad2 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the Sources section?
I just undid [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argumentation_theory&diff=659167419&oldid=656461869 the latest edit] to this page because someone added a source to the Sources section without citing that source in the article. That edit looked to me as if it might be self-promotion (WP:SELFCITE) of a freshly-published article. But then I looked at the Sources section and wondered: Is this section really a "Further reading" section, rather than a list of sources that were used to write the article? If the citations in the Sources section really were used to write the article, then shouldn't they be inserted into inline tags? Another option is to use Harvard citation templates (a form of short citations) in the tags to point to an alphabetical list of citations in the Sources section (for an example, see how citations are handled in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_factors_theory&oldid=650162961 Common factors theory] article). In other words, this article, as it currently stands, has a mix of citation styles that should be standardized into a single citation style (per WP:CITEVAR). If you have any ideas about what that standard citation style should be, please share your ideas below. Biogeographist (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Notes sections is mostly references, and that sources is mostly further reading; I've changed the headings to reflect this. Klbrain (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Argumentation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604123030/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11482 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11482
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050517075615/http://www.tcw.utwente.nl:80/theorieenoverzicht/Levels%20of%20theories/micro/Argumentation%20Theory.doc/ to http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Levels%20of%20theories/micro/Argumentation%20Theory.doc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argumentation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120221221912/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tarc to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tarc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/Levels%20of%20theories/micro/Argumentation%20Theory.doc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per unanimous consensus below, the redirect will instead be retargeted. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 20:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Argumentation theory → Argumentation – Argumentation redirects here and is clearly the more WP:COMMONNAME. Despite the lead section having been edited to describe Argumentation theory as a discipline or field of study, the page is still basically just about argumentation itself (the concept of people communicating via arguing or how arguments logically function/operate). Wolfdog (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose "argumentation" should redirect to argument per its definition argumentation or be a disambiguation page similar to Parametrization (disambiguation) with its see also to parameter (disambiguation) or in this case would be argument (disambiguation) -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose the requested move to Argumentation. The current name is fine; it has been established since the initial edit in 2004 and should continue, since the subject of this article is the, known as , and not simply the practice of argument/argumentation. The article Argument is closer to the latter subject. The proposal said Despite the lead section having been edited to describe Argumentation theory as a discipline or field of study: this is a mistake or misrepresentation, as the lead section has been about argumentation theory from the first edit; it was not subsequently changed to the current subject: see the first edit here. The suggestion to change Argumentation to a disambiguation page seems worth considering. Biogeographist (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the above two editors then would prefer that the link Argumentation lands at Argument. That strikes me as sensible. I'd happily make that change and rescind this Requested Move. (I'll wait a few more days though.) Wolfdog (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Philosophy has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Writing has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. As IP and Biogeographist said, Argumentation ⤳ Argument, and this article should stay as Argumentation theory, that is different from the subject of study. --Onwa (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)