Jump to content

Talk:Counterargument

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No U

[edit]

Why does "no u" even exsist? It is a wrong spelling of a childish argument that nobody needs to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.83.132.62 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Ah, let me educate thou, "No u" is a meme and should be known as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:341:300:59C0:A143:5208:4032:48D (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coatracking

[edit]

Editors may not use this or any other article as a WP:COATRACK to advance a position about a wholly unrelated issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not do "examples" (see WP:NOT, as in "not a textbook" and "not a how-to guide). This addition is POV pushing, Coatracking, and just overall bad editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • diff 07:21, 28 February 2011 Qwyrxian (4,214 bytes) (→Counterexample: Please see WP:COATRACK. It's unbelievable that you would add this here.)
QED -- The objective usefulness and necessity of the table is demonstrated by the diff above. This diff is inadequate as refutation or counterargument. It is, in fact, mere contradiction. This opinion is without explanation or other support. --Tenmei (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian -- No, this is not "POV pushing". If this is your view, and if you feel strongly, explain it so that everyone can understand.

No, this is not "coatracking". This is an apparently necessary part of an article which was previously unsourced; and it is highly relevant that this specific term is prominently featured at WP:Dispute resolution. The term appears to be one which is neither acknowledged nor valued by you -- except in terms of this non-controversial table.

No, this is not "overall bad editing". Your credibility is insufficient to support a this evaluation. More is needed in the context of collaborative editing.

Qwyrxian -- Your user page announces that you have a MA in rhetoric. Therefore, it is not beyond your abilities to explain your editing decision in different words. This context requires something more than WP:Escalating alphabeticals. Now would be a good time to use your writing skills.

On the other hand, if you are unable or unwilling, this would be a good time to state it frankly and directly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't see how this is coatracking, then I'm not sure what I can say that will convince you. You attempted to add this table to Foreign relations of Japan, and were told by an admin that it could not go there, in a topic that is at least distantly related, because it would give undue weight to that information. Then you added it here, to a wholly unrelated topic. Those documents push a very strong POV--they are specifically selected to demonstrate ownership of a group of Senkaku Islands by a particular country. They do not place the debate in context, they do not provide the other sides' perspectives; instead, they exist wholly to support one POV. Including them here, where they do not belong (see below) is clear evidence of trying to push a point of view. This exactly meets the definition in the opening paragraph of WP:COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coat-rack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there."
Furthermore, we know for certain that this information does not belong here because it violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook or how-to guide. Thus, we generally do not provide examples of topics, with a few small exceptions (math and computer programming, both of which have details which are hard to explain outside of their own peculiar language are the two I recall at the moment). And if, for some reason, editors at this page felt that an example was reasonable, it most certainly could not be one on such a controversial subject.
I can only conclude that you brought this set of documents here because it was rejected at Foreign relations of Japan, where you added it only because the Senkaku articles were locked (and you'd face difficulty getting this into the article because of the strong battleground mentality going on there). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian -- in the diff above, no sentence appears to address counterargument.

Counterargument is the explicit subject of this article and the subject of this table.

Proof of engagement with Qwyrxian's words in diff above
Proof of engagement with Qwyrxian's words in diff above}}
If I have misconstrued one of more sentences, please point it out.

Your overarching objection seems to focus on issues unrelated to what the table mildly presents.

In other words, I do not see how your imagined working hypothesis relates to Category:Informal arguments?

Is it possible that the emotion which seems to infuse your prose is a mistake? Could it be that you perceive a problem with something that just isn't there? --Tenmei (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that table (the one above this), is you saying a whole bunch of times that you disagree with my position. I have stated explicitly and clearly why this is an unambiguous violation of 2 different core policies; you have not addressed either of those points other than to just state that my claims are "unsupported." Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian -- the term counterargument is unacknowledged and unmentioned.

If you decline to create even one sentence with the term in it, then I don't see how you can be said to have engaged the subject of the article or the subject of the table. If you fail to acknowledge any element or aspect of the table, what are we to make of it.

You contradict; but this exludes everyone from any constructive issue clarifying process. In effect, you refuse to acknowledge the vocabulary of a process.

This is not collaborative editing; this is only contradiction.

QED -- The objective usefulness and necessity of the table is proven when Qwyrxian's diffs show neither refutation nor counterargument based on the table itself rather than outside the box opinions. This is talking past each other, and only one of us is trying to move beyond the impasse you and you alone create.

Your user page explains that you have a MA in Rhetoric; and this makes it difficult to construe an inability to make yourself understood. --Tenmei (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright...I'll try. A counterargument is a rebuttal, an argument responding to another, already made argument. It is a terminology used in debate or logic. It is an abstract concept used to define a certain portion of a larger dispute between two or more actors. I don't claim to have a precise understanding of the term, so I'm going off of what is said in the article and on my general understanding of the concept.

Having said that, what does "counterargument" have to do with a set of documents about the Senkaku Islands? Keep in mind, as I've said several times, that we don't include examples. I see no connection between a rhetorical concept and some historical documents about a political/economic/geographic dispute in East Asia. Note that your example table would be equally unacceptable if it were about the price of fruit, the founding of Wikipedia, the intricacies of evolution, or any other topic, because none of these things have anything to do with the philosophical idea of "counterargument." It is more problematic than those with respect to your editing on Wikipedia, because I don't think you picked this example arbitrarily. Does that more clearly address your question? If not, I really don't understand what you are asking. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the diff above, a meaningful process of collaborative editing begins. Before this, I could only guess about the specific, related points you now decide to identify. We confirm that we are "on the same page" when I repeat and underscore your words:
No connection between a rhetorical concept and ... historical documents
I see no connection between a rhetorical concept and some historical documents about a political/economic/geographic dispute in East Asia.
None of these things have ... to do with the philosophical idea of 'counterargument'
"... example table would be equally unacceptable if it were about the price of fruit, the founding of Wikipedia, the intricacies of evolution, or any other topic, because none of these things have anything to do with the philosophical idea of 'counterargument'."
QED -- these shared words admit sufficient justification for
(a) adding a table initially and
(b) investing time in this talk page thread.
IMO, the connection between the rhetorical concept and the historical documents is explicit; and I do not know what to do next? I don't know what to make of the phrase "philiosophical idea of 'counterargument'"? --Tenmei (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blank table

[edit]

What is the logic behind having a table with no information in it? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I took out the "under construction" template because the article is no longer receiving regular, significant changes. If there comes a time when someone starts working on it again in earnest, then the tag can be replaced. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, some of the science pages out there are developed bit by bit like this (like the Olfactory System). While it is better to post a polished draft with more information, what Tenmei was doing is not entirely out of the norm. I'd say you should've waited a week before deleting his table. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Counterargument&oldid=1201180162"