Talk:Argumentation theory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Toulmin 

message: I just undid 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 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)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of the [[Argumentation theory#Sources|Sources]] section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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)
replies: text: Argumentation theory →  – 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)

text: *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)

text: Note: WikiProject Philosophy has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Writing has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 August 2023