Talk:Rhetoric (Aristotle): Difference between revisions
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) source request |
→Source request: ~~~~ |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
At the moment, we have Bizzell, P. & Bruce Herzberg. (2000). ''The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present'', and Golden, James L., Goodwin F. Berquist, William E. Coleman, & J. Michael Sproule (eds) (2003). ''The Rhetoric of Western Thought'', but no page numbers. What do they say exactly that you're using as support for that sentence? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
At the moment, we have Bizzell, P. & Bruce Herzberg. (2000). ''The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present'', and Golden, James L., Goodwin F. Berquist, William E. Coleman, & J. Michael Sproule (eds) (2003). ''The Rhetoric of Western Thought'', but no page numbers. What do they say exactly that you're using as support for that sentence? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Slim -- the sources are right there; page numbers are needed for direct quotes. And, this claim hardly needs referencing as it is one that is considered common knowledge in these disciplines, but illustrative sources are provided. They say what virtually everyone in the field of rhetoric says -- that the leading, premier work is Aristotle's Rhetoric; others would say that everything else is derivative. This is not a doctoral defense and this article is already far better documented than most of Wikipedia. This is nothing but harassment from you that just keeps continuing. Cut the harrassment. [[User:SwanSZ|Cyg-nifier]] 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:09, 29 April 2007
 | Books Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
Under development
Please note that this article is underdevelopment. Creating an outline first creates the categories for adding in information over the next few days and provides an outline of the book. This is a legitimate way to develop an article. Please if you have something substantive to add, add it! This way we can work together to create a fine article. Otherwise, please leave the structure in place to allow organized development. Cyg-nifier 10:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't add headers without content. It looks odd and there's no need for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Source request
Can we have a source, please, for "The Art of Rhetoric" ... is considered by many rhetorical scholars to be the premier work ever written on the nature of persuasion."
At the moment, we have Bizzell, P. & Bruce Herzberg. (2000). The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, and Golden, James L., Goodwin F. Berquist, William E. Coleman, & J. Michael Sproule (eds) (2003). The Rhetoric of Western Thought, but no page numbers. What do they say exactly that you're using as support for that sentence? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Slim -- the sources are right there; page numbers are needed for direct quotes. And, this claim hardly needs referencing as it is one that is considered common knowledge in these disciplines, but illustrative sources are provided. They say what virtually everyone in the field of rhetoric says -- that the leading, premier work is Aristotle's Rhetoric; others would say that everything else is derivative. This is not a doctoral defense and this article is already far better documented than most of Wikipedia. This is nothing but harassment from you that just keeps continuing. Cut the harrassment. Cyg-nifier 21:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)