Talk:Pathos

message: if someone wants to actually do something for this page, i'd suggest adding more information about how it relates to the three audience appeals addressed in Rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos). It would probably be fairy easy to just look at a few other pages and see what's being said on them.
--Vicapowell39 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhetoric 

message: pathos: The effect of literature which makes the reader feel sadness or pity
*That's actually not the only definition, and by the way, you put that on the Talk page instead of the article. According to Princeton's Wordnet , "pathos" is:
**"poignancy (a quality that arouses emotions (especially pity or sorrow))"
**"commiersation, puty, ruth, pathos (a feeling of sympathy and sorrow for the misfortunes of others)"
**"a style that has the power to evoke feelings"
:Runa27 00:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition? 

message: The article needs some structure, it is almost illegible. -- Aethralis 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Why does "pathetic" redirect here?
Mouse 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mousy, why does it redirect here? It makes no sense to me since it isn't mentioned in the article. Oh and that doesn't answer the question, I want some intelligent answer, not obvious answer. TheBlazikenMaster 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It now redirects to the wictionary definition.--   Avg    23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's possible somebody none-too-wisely tried to draw the (semi-)obvious connection between pathos and empathy. If you look at the Pathetic fallacy article, it notes that the term's first half comes from "empathy". However, unfortunately normal English does not use "pathetic" that way, so it ended up just being a really weird redirect; switching the redirect to Wikitionary is probably for the best, all things considered. 4.235.6.119 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic? 

message: why is this article so short?
Fruckert (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: This article is clearly about "pathos" understood as the rhetorical technique, especially as theorized by Aritotle. Since "pathos" has multiple meanings absolutely different from that (for example, as used by Plato or by Nietzsche), I suggest that the article must be either retitled "Pathos (rhetorical technique)" (or something similar) or completed at least with a mention of the rest of the most important historical uses of the concept. Otherwise, it is misleading for those who, having found the term in a different context, arrive at the article and receive the impression that "pathos" is solely, or primarily, a rhetorical technique.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.173.216 (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Can examples or further explanation be provided for the following sentence?
"Another interpretation is that logos invokes emotions relevant to the issue at hand, whereas pathos invokes emotions that have no bearing on the issue, in that the pathē they stimulate lack, or at any rate are not shown to possess, any intrinsic connection with the point at issue."
--BB12 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to logos 

message: The secondary references to Aristotle by the editors who used Kennedy's Aristotle On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse are, to the best of my knowledge, non-standard and therefore I find it impossible to be sure what passages in Aristotle are being cited. Standard practice is to cite large sections of Aristotle's writings by name of work, book number, and chapter number, e.g. Rhetoric III, 18 or Rhet. 3.18 etc. Standard practice for referring to shorter passages is to use the Bekker numbers, e.g. Rhet. 1418b39-1419a5, etc. Apparently — and I don't have the book to verify this — Kennedy, in his translation, subdivides the chapters with his own numbering (probably to make his commentary easier to follow) and thus we get cites to "Book 2.1.5–9" and the like. It would be beneficial to those who want to look more deeply into what Aristotle was saying to replace those 'Kennedy numbers' with the equivalent Bekker numbers. I hope someone with access to both Kennedy's book and a Bekker-numbered translation of the Rhetoric will do that, please. — Blanchette (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard cites of Aristotle 

message: While this article certainly gets the history aspect of pathos written down well enough to an extent, the lack of true contemporary or modern-day applications and usages of pathos are not included, and the only person referenced within the 20th century is George A. Kennedy, and then underneath Contemporary Pathos, there is no substantial amounts of modern mention of the usage of pathos outside of one mention to the prospect of speech writing. Many citations are much older, the earliest dating to 1973, and while the information is still valuable, all citations used don't date beyond 2001, and there needs to be more recent research and citations applied to make it a overall stronger article.
 
There is much that could and can be expanded upon within this article that would be more beneficial to all readers. The bare minimum is there, and seeing as this article is talking about Pathos is general and not one specific aspect of the appeal, there needs to be more mentions of how it is used in other mediums such as the performing arts, arts in general, and other contemporary forms of appeal and media. 
Also noted some lacking publication dates on one citation, and while the same source was previously cited with a date, the same authors and work are cited multiple times and lack the publication dates, even though they are distinct in which part of the novel being used to cite for the respective information. IT would make more sense to in my opinion to either add publication dates to the subsequent citations or simply remove them and keep the primary citation, again due to it being the same source, just without a specification of where in the novel the citation is being taken from. Ultimately that is subjective and subject to Wikipedia's citation method, but it is worth taking a look at. Mckeandrp (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dated Information and Expansion 

message: Perhaps Stoic passions should be merged with this page, or at least that content should be better integrated with this page. Teishin (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathos in Stoicism 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kmoore28 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Digital Writing