Talk:Rhetorical stance

message: Crickrhet (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

message: Hi,  I'm going to be working on this article as much as possible, hopefully I'll get it at least past stub class.  I think it's an important one and am surprised to see it hasn't been created yet.
Deptstoremook 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This stub presents a somewhat elementary discussion based on only a couple sources. It has a couple good links but the potential for a more fully developed and cited article that can be linked to a number of other pages, such as "Rhetoric" and some of the scholars and theories that address the topic.
This stub presents a somewhat elementary discussion based on only a couple sources. It has a couple good links but the potential for a more fully developed and cited article that can be linked to a number of other pages, such as "Rhetoric" and some of the scholars and theories that address the topic. This page is very closely related to other articles, but I agree with its creator that “rhetorical stance” is a nuance of rhetoric that deserves an article of its own.
Some of the changes I would make to the existing content
: The definition needs fleshed out with multiple sources, it is based on only Dartmouth’s explanation of “What   : is an Academic Paper?” 
: The title “Subject” needs to be reconsidered
: “Reader” is questionable—the term should be changed to something more inclusive, such as 
: “Audience,” 
: The section on rhetorical appeals needs to be developed with more background information relative to the 
: topic, and needs explanation of the roles of the appeals in rhetorical stance
Some information I would add
: The page needs an overhaul of the organization, adding and changes names of sections
: In the introduction, I would offer a more definitions, possible setting the article up chronologically  or around 
: specific theories/ists
: Also in the introduction, discuss additional relevant disciplines, professions, and situations
: The article is missing a section on author/speaker, which is the major consideration of rhetorical stance
: The “Reader” section discusses only academic audiences and needs to be developed
: A discussion of the 5 canons as relevant
: The section on rhetorical appeals needs to be developed with more background information relative to the 
: topic, and needs explanation of the roles of the appeals in rhetorical stance
: There are no references cited, but the two used in the first paragraph
: This page should have a “See also” section
If anyone has suggestions or comments, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Crickrhet (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of “Rhetorical Stance” page

message: Wayne Booth's important 1963 4C's talk and article "The Rhetorical Stance," possibly the major reason the phrase "rhetorical stance" is so recognized today, might be a good starting place for this article. See it in College Composition and Communication, Vol. 14, No.3, Annual Meeting, Los Angeles,
1963: Toward a New Rhetoric. (Oct., 1963), pp. 139-145.  Webster Newbold (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wayne Booth

message: I have rewritten this entire page, but plan to add a little more. If anyone has comments or especially additional sources, please contribute! 
—Crickrhet (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! A few classmates and I are working on this Wikipedia page for a school project, we will be trying to make some changes in order to improve this article a little more. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. --Izamo13 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Rewritten

message: My classmates and I are reviewing this page and we had a few suggestions. The tone throughout this article resembles an opinion essay. Many of the sentences sound like facts and we would like to fix this problem by adding more sources. 
Also, for the in academic and in non-academic communities section on this page, we would like to combine the two and explain how these different aspects utilize rhetorical stance. 
As for the reference list, there are many incomplete sources. We plan to clean these up and add the correct information. 
We plan to add these improvements shortly. If anyone has any suggestions or disagreements let me know. Thanks! Izamo13 (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An author or speaker takes a rhetorical stance in all communications, not only public address, formal argument, or academic essays. Although one finds the bulk of the discussion on rhetorical stance in academia, myriad “other-than-academic communities,” such as business,[19] the law,[20] journalism/media,   religious institutions,[22] and politics,[23] utilize and discuss theories of rhetorical stance.
Please advise on whether you see any errors with the above formal citations. AdrielleNVA (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi Cathygaborusf! Yes, this was just a formatting issue on my end. All has been corrected. Thanks again! AdrielleNVA (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvement 

message: In the "intro" section I aimed to simplify the introductory paragraph. I mostly kept the original structure, but felt it was appropriate to remove several big words such as "encompasses" and "exploitation." I also tried to condense the paragraph by using more direct and short sentences. Finally, I removed the end definition by Golden, Berquist and Coleman at the end - as I felt the term was adequately defined in the previous lines of the introduction. 05:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the "Intro" section

message: In the "non-academic communities" section, the first sentence is not grammatically correct. The plurality does not match throughout the sentence, and because of this I am going to pluralize “addresses” and “arguments.” Also, the journalism/media's reference takes you to a Wikipedia page on Marshall McLuhan. Although he studied media theory, I think it would be more effective to put a piece of his work, and/or an article on how rhetorical stance is utilized in media and journalism. I would like to change this reference to an article I found about teenage pregnancy and how the magazines and the media portray this issue negatively. Here is the article I would like to use, Vinson, J. (2012). Covering national concerns about teenage pregnancy: A visual rhetorical analysis of images of pregnant and mothering women. Feminist Formations, 24(2), 140-162. Also, a book called The Medium Is the Message, by Marshall McLuhan, explains how the different forms of mediums can affect how one can perceive a topic. For example, newer mediums such as television, have altered the way in which we have viewed an issue by appealing to human senses. 
Also, this section explains how non-academic communities utilize rhetorical stance, but based on the articles provided, I do not see the connection to how they discuss rhetorical stance. Because of this, I would like to delete the word “discuss” so the main focus is “utilize.” Izamo13 (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An author or speaker takes a rhetorical stance in all communications, not only public address, formal argument, or academic essays. Although one finds the bulk of the discussion on rhetorical stance in academia, myriad “other-than-academic communities,” such as business,[19] the law,[20] journalism/media,   religious institutions,[22] and politics,[23] utilize and discuss theories of rhetorical stance.
Please advise on whether you see any errors with the above formal citations. AdrielleNVA (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi Cathygaborusf! Yes, this was just a formatting issue on my end. All has been corrected. Thanks again! AdrielleNVA (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the "Rhetorical Stance in Non-Academic Communities" section

message: I think adding more examples and references on how rhetorical stance is used in non-academic communities would be very beneficial. I personally did not have much luck on trying to find more resources that were not already discussed. If anyone has the time to do a more in-depth research, I think that it would be very useful. If anyone has any future suggestions please feel free to include them here!  Izamo13 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Further Review

message: For the rhetorical stance in academic communities section of this Wikipedia page, there are several things that I have decided to add and take away. In the rhetorical stance in academic communities part, we are going into more depth about how it is used in specific educational fields, such as public speaking and English. We will be discussing aspects such as implementing "anchorage" and "relay" into rhetorical stance. More edits are to come, and I will be posting a draft soon for suggestions, questions, and concerns. Ipannepacker (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In academia, several courses offered at institutions incorporate rhetorical stance. Speech and English departments, especially, have implemented this tactic in their educational plans. In speech classes, rhetorical stance is used when the speaker, the student presenting, is addressing the audience, his/her classmates. Speakers use anchorage and relay to appeal to their audience. Anchorage uses images to assist the speaker/author get specific points across, while relay uses moving images, such as videos, comic strips, etc. to do the same. Speakers and authors adjust their rhetorical stance to accommodate a particular audience. When the speaker is talking, they alter their rhetorical stance and use various techniques for different audiences based off of the particular situation.  There are several ways that a speaker or writer can make their audience feel a connection or relation to them. A particular pronoun can make the audience feel either included or excluded. If the author says, for example, “All of us Europeans are well traveled,” it implies that all of “us” Europeans agree with the fact that "we" are well traveled. However, if a non-European reads this or listens to it in a speech, they will not feel a connection to the speaker or author, making them feel very antagonistic.  Ipannepacker (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the "Rhetorical Stance in Academic Communitities" section

message: Though I have adjusted the tone and reviewed the references of this piece already, due to time constraints, there are a few things that I haven't been able to touch on which I think would be beneficial to look into should someone be so inclined to do so. 
:It would be interesting to include some more references, giving readers an even wider point of view in regards to the purpose of rhetorical stance.
:It would also be helpful to maybe expand the purpose section and discuss what purpose rhetorical stance has in different platforms. For instance, reviewing the purpose of rhetorical stance in a persuasive essay vs. an academic research paper. Though this may be time-consuming, I believe that it would add a lot more depth to the section, and aid users who may be looking for rhetorical stance information more specific to what they might be working on.
Should anyone have any more suggestions for future edits to the purpose sections, please feel free to include them below, and to critique the suggestions I have made above! AdrielleNVA (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Further Review

message: Below I have provided an edited version of the "context" section of the Rhetorical Stance wiki page. This section was not written with encyclopedic tone, as it included a few opinionated statements and claims. In order to fix this, I have removed words and phrases such as "must," "one defines context as...", etc in order to conform more with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. I also corrected the name's as some of them were not full names when citing people. "Levinson" was changed to "Steven Levinson," for example. Please reply with any other edits or suggestions that could help improve the "Context" section. 
For future editors of this wikipedia page, it would be beneficial to find more works regarding Brian Street, Stephen Levinson, or any other rhetors that discuss the topic of rhetorical stance. Street and Levinson have both come up with their own respective definitions of rhetorical stance, but Levinson’s is considered a “narrower” definition compared to Street’s. Finding more details on Levinson’s definition, or another rhetor’s definition that is comparably narrow to his, would be a great addition to the “Context” section.  
: Authors position themselves in relation to their audience based on the relevant interrelational contextual elements that affect the communication situation. In the field of context, Brian Street and Stephen Levinson are examples of scholars that came up with their own respective definitions of context. Brian Street argues for a broad definition of “context” to include “conceptual systems, political structures, economic processes, and so on, rather than simply a ‘network’ or ‘interaction’”.[5] With this broad definition, he counters Stephen Levinson’s narrower definition, which limits relevant contextual elements to immediate and observable events. When the author or speaker has an understanding of the contextual situation, they can build credibility with their audience. Successful authors experience the building of credibility by having awareness of the relevant contextual circumstances that influence the delivery of the message, along with knowledge of the subject and clear perception of purpose. Ipannepacker (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the "Context" section

message: This section of the rhetorical stance has parts that are both convoluted and misconstrued. It is also written with an underlying bias towards cognition and psychological development, but lacks sufficient sources/evidence to constitute its bold claims. My goal is to rewrite the section in a clear and concise manner that captures the true essence of what the author/speaker is in rhetorical stance. JohnNathaniel (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the "Author/Speaker" section

message: I have made several edits for the audience section of this page. First, I noticed that it refers to “her” in two places. This does not follow an encyclopedic tone. An encyclopedic tone is one where gender-neutral pronouns are used. Because of this, I would like to change “her” to a non-specific pronoun, such as “one.” Also, instead of “(see Campbell and Hugh Blair),” that is in the middle of the entry, I think putting an actual piece of work by either of them will be more effective. I found a book George Campbell wrote called The Philosophy of Rhetoric that I would like to include. He talks about how one can appeal to an audience by using argumentative and emotional tones, which I think fits well in this paragraph since it talks about how one can gain power over their audience. Also, instead of combing Aristotle and Cicero’s knowledge of an audience, I would like to expand on this by adding more information on each of their theories. I will be adding the correct citations before posting into the actual Wikipedia page. Here are my edits:
:Experienced rhetors, according to Aristotle as well as 20th-century rhetoricians such as Golden, Berquist, and Coleman, begin their process of adopting rhetorical stance with an analysis of the audience. Professional authors and speakers utilize their knowledge of the subject and establish credibility to help influence how well their message is received. Scottish Enlightenment rhetorician, George Campbell touches on this matter by explaining how one can gain power over and appeal to their audience by applying argumentative and emotional tones.  Aristotle emphasizes the consideration of human nature and emotion in order to achieve a successful understanding of one’s audience and the establishment of the relationship necessary for achieving persuasion. [12] The author creates this impression by demonstrating an understanding of the audience’s needs and by “substantiating”,[10] according to Kenneth Burke, intellectual and empathetic relationships between oneself and the audience. Following Aristotle’s theory, Cicero explains that by adapting to the emotion’s of the audience, one can be successful in gaining their respect and attention. [13] Plato’s “noble aims”[11] of rhetoric require the author to strive for a moral elevation of both author and audience. Izamo13 (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cathygaborusf! Thank you so much for pointing that out. I've gone ahead and made the appropriate adjustments. AdrielleNVA (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for the "Audience" Section

message: I have changed the tone and improved this section as much to my ability, but there are multiple ways in which the speaker and/or writer can relate to their audience that I did not have time to research. I think relating this section to the modern 21st century and introducing the use of technology and social media would be very interesting. If anyone has any future suggestions please feel free to include them here! Izamo13 (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for Further Review

message: Pursuant to WP:WTRMT, I think that the criteria for removing the template at the top has been satisfied. This article clearly writes from an unbiased and verifiable viewpoint, with no subjective terms and an 'encyclopaedic tone', and am therefore satisfied with the removal of the template.  GreatGambino (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Maintenance Template