Talk:Persuasive definition

message: I removed the following examples from the article:
I think these are all backwards: The term being defined is the one with loaded language. As I understand it the word shark, for example, could be persuasively defined as "a cold-blooded killing machine". A less persuasive definition would be one like used at the Wikipedia article: "a type of fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton and a highly streamlined body". —Mrwojo (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded terms rather than persuasive definitions used as examples 

message: It seems like at least some of the items used as examples of persuasive definition are aspects of highly contentious two-sided arguments, but only provides the "definition" given by one side; this may suggest a degree of weight against that side if not balanced by something from the other, to show the presence of similar fallacy on both sides of the fence.  For instance, while it may be fallacious to define "atheist" as "someone who doesn't realize God exists", there are equally fallacious terms used by atheists to describe people who believe in God.  Also, while it may be fallacious or unprovable for pro-lifers to define a fetus as an "unborn person", there are similarly biased and persuasive definitions used by pro-choicers.  In any case, both God and personhood are matters that can't be properly proven or disproven, so there's value in providing examples from both sides.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.45.169.2 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sides 

message: Something is really fishy with this text all over it. The most striking example is:
*definition opposing taxation: "the procedure used by bureaucrats to rip off the people who elected them"
This is not a "definition" at all. It is a description or opinion about. Taken to an extreme, one may say that "an average American is a racist" is a definition. In other words, IMO most of the article is one big "misdefinist fallacy". IMO the reason is a fallacious confusion of different usages of the copula "is". "Bear is <a kind of> a mammal" is a <kinda> definition. 'Bear is a beast roaming the cities of Russia" is not really.  Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: ORIGINAL RESEARCH tag

message: I started rewriting the intro, which was rather garbled, but while checking sources, I see that different authors define the term differently. Therefore I am suspending the work until getting a full picture. Below is a piece I stared writing based on the original Stevenson's text, but it appears that since 1938 (pub. date) the meaning was somewhat altered. In particular, Bradley Dowden's entry from IEP makes a more general definition.IEP cite: "An effort to influence attitudes by surreptitiously attaching emotive significance to the meaning of a term. According to Stevenson, the most common instance is an effort to change the descriptive meaning of an emotionally-charged evaluative term." I have a problem with piece " According to Stevenson, the most common instance". In fact it not "the most common instance", it is exactly Stevenson's definition.  However looks rather sloppy to me; IEP looks rather "popular science" to me, rather than a scholarly work.  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Started rewriting

message: As per Politics is the Mind-Killer, I want to replace these examples with less distracting ones. Any objections? wizzwizz4 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, if you have references from good sources which discuss the article subject, not just quotations you think are good here. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this quotation is completely irrelevant to the article; I just thought it was a good policy. I'll try to find some sourced examples; though in many  similar articles, the examples are not lifted verbatim from texts; instead, sources are used for the definition, and they satisfy the definition. wizzwizz4 (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not talking about this quotaion (it is not in the article). As for the Scotsman, thank you for pointing this out. Someone recently added a huge chunk of original research of WP:SYNTH type; deleted. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  - how do you know that? If you cannot quote a source that say it satisfies definition, then this is a small piece of your original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that this falls under the spirit of WP:These are not original research#Translation and contextualizing and WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not explanation. If the examples we can find sources for are specific to national politics of some description, we're allowed to contextualise them outside those scenarios, provided that what's written is still supported by the sources. We're also allowed to give explanations for what we can find in sources, provided that the explanations are supported by the sources; an example is a form of explanation. wizzwizz4 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - not exactly so, you are crossing a red line here: we are allowed to give explanations provided by the sources. We may summarize them, but we cannot invent them alleging that they are "supported by sources". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What about recontextualising a political quotation by swapping political for apolitical allusions? wizzwizz4 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Political examples

message: In the Related Concepts section of the Motte-and-bailey fallacy article, there is a link to this Persuasive definitions article, but the link itself is named "concept-swapping" and has a (currently broken) source for that name (I am providing the archive.org link for that reference).https://web.archive.org/web/20180205123431/https://my.fit.edu/~aberdein/Nelson.pdf This source gives the following definition: "’concept-swapping’, the process whereby one concept is substituted for another in the course of an argument, without the audience (or perhaps even the arguer) realising what has happened". The reference even notes that "persuasive definition" is one of many similar terms.
But the term "concept-swapping" is completely absent from this persuasive definitions article. I think it would be best if it were included in some way (maybe just add to See Also section?), and also possibly some of the other related terms/concepts listed in the given reference, such as dissociation, monster barring, no true Scotsman, and motte & bailey.
73.131.249.36 (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept-Swapping