Talk:Rogerian argument: Difference between revisions
Pollinosisss (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: new section |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Multiple Changes == |
== Multiple Changes == |
||
The biographical information about Carl Rogers does not belong on this page, but rather on the page for Carl Rogers, this page links to his biographical page. The section on criticisms seemed inappropriate for a wikipedia article. The word "enthymeme" did not help to explain what is an "adversial form of debate", in fact if the reader doesn't understand what is an adverserial form of debate, they are unlikely to know what "enthymeme" means and will not be helped by reading the wikipedia page in the link. Since the comment about being mostly used in written discourse had no citation and seems baseless, I deleted the comment.[[User:Johnlv12|John Lawrence]] ([[User talk:Johnlv12|talk]]) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
The biographical information about Carl Rogers does not belong on this page, but rather on the page for Carl Rogers, this page links to his biographical page. The section on criticisms seemed inappropriate for a wikipedia article. The word "enthymeme" did not help to explain what is an "adversial form of debate", in fact if the reader doesn't understand what is an adverserial form of debate, they are unlikely to know what "enthymeme" means and will not be helped by reading the wikipedia page in the link. Since the comment about being mostly used in written discourse had no citation and seems baseless, I deleted the comment.[[User:Johnlv12|John Lawrence]] ([[User talk:Johnlv12|talk]]) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Ethos, Pathos, and Logos == |
|||
Removed ethos, pathos, and logos because their inclusion suggested that they are not used in Rogerian argument, that they are unique to Aristotelian argument. In fact, they can and are employed frequently in Rogerian argument. |
|||
Revision as of 21:51, 18 June 2012
 | Philosophy Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Image copyright problem with File:Carlrogers.jpg
The image File:Carlrogers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Multiple Changes
The biographical information about Carl Rogers does not belong on this page, but rather on the page for Carl Rogers, this page links to his biographical page. The section on criticisms seemed inappropriate for a wikipedia article. The word "enthymeme" did not help to explain what is an "adversial form of debate", in fact if the reader doesn't understand what is an adverserial form of debate, they are unlikely to know what "enthymeme" means and will not be helped by reading the wikipedia page in the link. Since the comment about being mostly used in written discourse had no citation and seems baseless, I deleted the comment.John Lawrence (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
Removed ethos, pathos, and logos because their inclusion suggested that they are not used in Rogerian argument, that they are unique to Aristotelian argument. In fact, they can and are employed frequently in Rogerian argument.