Jump to content

Talk:Rhetoric/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sophists and Rhetoric

Isn't sophistry nearly the opposite of rhetoric? One definition of sophism is "a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone" So how could the sophists have invented rhetoric, as the article says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

From my (undergraduate) studies on rhetoric, I understand that the sophists were rhetors. They just had different ideas on the purposes of rhetoric. The discussion here under "Rhetoric and the Masses, Definition" makes an excellent point that rhetoric is not just about one thing. It's about the rhetor, the means of persuasion, the message, the audience, etc. I don't think that the defintion of sophism you mentioned is accurate, at least from my understanding of sophists and rhetoric. The way I understand classical rhetoric is that there was (among other things) a divide between those who believed in transcendent truth, and those who did not - you know, is there an absoulte truth and can it be known. The sophlsts, from what I gather, were attacked by people like Plato for not believing in THE 'truth' because if there's no absolute truth, there's no morality either, and these ideas were (are) considered dangerous to society - and to epistemologies which needed transcendent truth. What sophists seemed to be getting at, from my understanding, was the use of rhetoric as a form of self-defense. If you know the means of persuasion, you're less likely to be unduly influenced. I'm just an undergrad though, so my knowledge on this is very limited, and I certainly don't have the 'ethos' to back this up. Also, this definition of sohpism seems to me to define rhetoric as a means to persuade using only valid arguments and for the purpose of enlightening, which does not seem to be the case, especially with how the word 'rhetoric' seems to be used today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.70 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sophists were said to use rhetoric because they gave relatively long speeches. This was in contrast to Socrates, who employed dialectic. Rhetoric is one person giving a speech to an audience that doesn't answer. Dialectic is two or more persons speaking with and answering each other. Lestrade (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

The relationship between the Sophists and rhetoric is the key to understanding the meaning of rhetoric. The Sophists were orators who gave long speeches. Socrates, on the other hand, used dialectic, which is short alternations of questions and answers. The contrast between long monologues (rhetoric) and short dialogues (dialectic) brings out the meaning of rhetoric. In one case, Socrates purposely mocked the Sophists by abandoning his usual dialectical method and giving a long, involved rhetorical oration. This was in the dialogue Protagoras, 342 B - 347 A.Lestrade (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Hi, in fact sophism is an argument in rhetoric, thus sophistry belongs to rhetoric art. I am the main contributo on french article (very good article) and i cited sophistry as a part of rhetoric for two reasons : first codified rhetoric was born after sophistry was swept out from it (thanks to Socrate). Second, sophism represents a non-sense among all the arguments used by rhetors. Sorry for my english, Prosopee (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Socrates always tries to force the Sophists into abandoning their long speeches. He tries to engage them in question–and–answer conversations. In Gorgias, 448 D, Socrates says of the Sophist Polus: "…Polus has devoted himself much more to what is called oratory [rhetoric] than to the art of conversation [dialectic]." Sophists professed to be experts in the teaching of rhetoric, that is, monologic, oratorical public speaking. This is in contrast to Socrates' preference for dialogistic, conversational dialectic.Lestrade (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

ad Herennium

On whose authority does wikipedia attribute Rhetorica ad Herennium to Cicero ? Who, finally, was the real author? We have no evidence to determine that, and so must assign the work to an auctor incertus--Anne97432 (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The author is known as "Pseudo Cicero," because the text was long (and erroneously) believed to be Cicero's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antistrophos (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Style changes

I've cleaned up the article somewhat. This is a fine example - it looks like - of a very good article emerging purely spontaneously, with the help of lots of people. It's great to see, and those who have contributed so far, very well done. Wikidea 16:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Rhetoric

I have removed the section on Chinese rhetoric because in its current state it contributes little to the article and contains specific information on Mao Zedong that would be better incorporated into a detailed section (rather that the seven lines we have now).

As I'm sure that this action will cause controversy so I have started a new talk section Dreamlogic (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


The removed section is reproduced below:

In Chinese civilization, rhetoric has been primarily written, not oral, due to regional differences in language, and the centrality of the written Classical Chinese language to the empire; accordingly, calligraphy and studies of classical Chinese literature have received more attention than oral delivery.

In imperial China, bureaucrats would be sent to different regions, where they would be able to communicate in writing but relatively less in speech, and in the 20th century the speeches of Mao Zedong were frequently incomprehensible to most Chinese listeners due to his heavy regional accent, with his rhetoric being better known through his writings and calligraphy, and particularly his Quotations from Chairman Mao (Little Red Book).


May I suggest some starting points if anyone wishes to tackle this (complex topic) in English:

Research in Rhetoric in China (1996) by Mary M. Garrett, the full text is available from Educational Resources Information Center

Rhetoric in ancient China, fifth to third century, B.C.E.: a comparison with classical Greek rhetoric by Lu, Lucy Xing, introduction on Google books books.google.com

There is an old but interesting academic thread here The Chinese Rhetoric Thread

The work of Christoph Harbsmeier might also be useful

Also available is the paper: A Perspective of Chinese Rhetorical Strategy by Guan, Yan, full text available All Academic - Having read this (as a purely personal opinion) it seems that the author focuses on criticism of Western academic writing on Chinese rhetoric, there is very little detail on the Chinese academic perspective or on what is meant by rhetoric in a Chinese context, so it may not be a useful source for the section

Good Luck

I will research and write a Chinese rhetoric section if I have time, but it should be done with someone whose Chinese is far better than mine. Dreamlogic (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Degree courses "General Rhetoric"

A notable fact is, that you can attend degree courses in rhetoric. The University of Tübingen (Germany) is the only German university and probably the only university in the world which offers degree courses in "General Rhetoric" (in German: Allgemeine Rhetorik). You can graduate with a Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts or even a Dr. phil (PhD) in General Rhetoric. --91.46.37.225 (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Aristotle responsible for the "five canons of rhetoric"

The article states that:

" In Aristotle's systematization of rhetoric, one important aspect of rhetoric to study and theorize was the three persuasive audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos, as well as the five canons of rhetoric: invention or discovery, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery."

This suggests that one of Aristotle systematic innovations was the discovery of the five canons of rhetoric "invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery". But isn't this a later Roman innovation? Aristotle does not explicitly discuss these 5 canons. It is controversial to claim that these already existed in Aristotle.

True or not I think this should be removed, insofar as it is controversial.

  • Aristotle explicitly discusses 4 of the 5. After defining the art, he proceeds to discuss (a) Invention of proofs; (b) delivery; (c) style; (d) arrangement. The canon of memory is something I associate with the Romans, in particular with the Ad Herennium. Calling them the five canons ... that's Roman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antistrophos (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Aristotle responsible for the "five cannons of rhetoric"

The article states that:

" In Aristotle's systematization of rhetoric, one important aspect of rhetoric to study and theorize was the three persuasive audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos, as well as the five canons of rhetoric: invention or discovery, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery."

This suggests that one of Aristotle systematic innovations was the discovery of the five canons of rhetoric "invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery". But isn't this a later Roman innovation? Aristotle does not explicitly discuss these 5 cannons. It is controversial to claim that these already existed in Aristotle.

True or not I think this should be removed, insofar as it is controversial.

5 canons

i dont think they should be attributed to any single writer. maybe we should say that they were codified in roman rhetoric.

Need for coherence and cleanup: irony

This page continues to feature this warning:

"To comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, the introduction of this article may need to be rewritten. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the layout guide to make sure the section will be inclusive of all essential details. (May 2011)"

Isn't this sad and ironic, given the subject matter of the page, the art of effective communication? It would be nice if the wiki page for "Rhetoric" demonstrated some mastery of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacyted (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern rhetorical theory

There's plenty of room for improvement here talking about contemporary rhet-comp pedagogy debates, Elbow-Bartholomae being a key on. Jonahkasha (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Typing RHETOR brings one here. PLEASE SOMEBODY put in a disambig. for Zacharias Rhetor  !! I tried but it always came out badly. Sussmanbern (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ἐρῶ

This word is the Future form of εἴρω, which clearly became obsolete and was replaced by the Present forms φημί or λέγω. The Aorist form is εἶπον. It is intriguing how so many different words had to be brought together to form a complete paradigm of the verb that indicates the most fundamental of human activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamour (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding the 20th Century reference

Please find below the references which auguments my edits to this page for the "Rhetoric in the 20th Century". I think ZMM is a very thoughtful work discussing on Rhetoric and a book with sufficient knowledge, references, analysis and research into rhetoric, this is why we would want to bring it explicitly under the 20th century works on Rhetoric.

Book: Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance Author: Robert M. Pirsig Link: [1] Pages 76,78,81-89,95,103,105,117,162-176

Author: Catherine Rowett, University of East Anglia, School of Philosophy, [2] Book: Absolute goodness, rhetoric and rationality: a discussion of Robert Pirsig's novel Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance and Plato's Phaedrus. [3]

Author: Dr. Richard Cherwitz (Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1978) [4] Book: Rhetoric and philosophy [5] Rajesh Manickadas (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Isocrates vs Socrates?

I thought they are 2 different people. The page seemed to have mixed up the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.171.10 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That was vandalism from back in 17 July 2012. Thanks for pointing it out. older ≠ wiser 11:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Epistemology

The piece is biased in favour of one of the ideas it describes, that rhetoric is central to knowledge. The other idea, that rhetoric is different from knowledge, is described as a "stereotype" based on old assumptions on truth. Moreover, it claims that the tradition in which rhetoric is different from knowledge changed over the 20th century by the alleged influence of pragmatism and social constructionism.

That's not true, for although rhetoric and knowledge are closely related they are still adversarial because of their different points of interest, intentions etc.. The quoted writers dismiss notions of truth, and promote the importance of consensus or agreement, as if that would somehow legitimise rhetoric as central to knowledge.

I suggest we replace the piece with a version that doesn't presuppose social constructionism, pragmatism or dismissals of truth. Hence I'll begin to clarify some features and relations between rhetoric and knowledge (please feel free to contribute):

  1. Rhetoric intends to influence beliefs or behaviour by the available means, (beauty, truth, lies, authority, trends, flattery, or whatever works).
  2. Knowledge intends to establish true beliefs by means of justification (discovered evidence, good reason, true description).
  3. For a rhetorician knowledge is a means, for a scientist it is an end.
  4. For a scientist rhetoric is a means, for a rhetorician it is an end.
  5. Rhetorical reason is to discover the relevant issue at hand, or the available means, prior acting or forming an argument. Its domain is the particular case, not the general question.
  6. A knowledge-oriented use of rhetoric is to identify and select particular cases in order to find the truth of a general question.
  7. A rhetorical use of knowledge is to bring forth favourable truths and suppress unfavourable truths in order to persuade.
  8. In ideology rhetoric and knowledge might be adversarial: e.g. what an ideology says by rhetoric might be refuted by what knowledge says by discovered evidence.
  9. In education rhetoric and knowledge can be closely related: e.g. when rhetoric is used for influencing students to find knowledge.
  10. In education the difference between rhetoric and knowledge is reflected in a difference between tuition and research: i.e. researchers establish knowledge while teachers mediate it.
  11. ....

Rhetoric and knowledge

Ok, I renamed the previous section 'Epistemology' to 'Rhetoric and knowledge' and replaced its text with a concise version based on argument rather than sweeping history or quotes by social constructionists etc. Perhaps part of the previous text could still be useful? Its quoted writers didn't seem sufficiently well-known. I resolved to replace the text rather than attempt to clarify it. Please feel free to improve it.

--Kopare (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable modern theorists

I recommend removing Richard Vatz from the list of notable modern theorists. With all due respect to him, his work does not merit his recognition as such.

Examiner24 (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC) 5/1/15

USF - Visiting Scholars opportunity to work on rhetoric articles

Of potential interest to watchers of this page, the University of San Francisco's Department of Rhetoric and Language is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve Wikipedia articles on relevant subjects. This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you likely already work in. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see the USF Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Rhetoric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Shane Callahan

I have deleted this entry from the list of "modern theorists":

  • Shane Callahan From Indiana Who is known for writing Life In Idleness and invented the new dictionary on rhetoric. He said that rhetoric itself is an art form but we were using one word to explain several different meanings. The one word was being abused and based on confusion. He said he invented the new dictionary of rhetoric in order to explain a certain situation we may be facing in everyday life. He wanted to eliminate the confusion of the one word. Publisher Author House Bloomington, Indiana. Life In Idleness ISBN-13:978-1504913775

Note that the linked article is actually for an actor named Michael Shane Callahan, not for a philosopher or author. The IP who inserted this information has edit-warred to include "From Indiana" and the "Publisher..." clause. I have made a request at the IP's talk page to provide information regarding why Callahan should be included in this article and to explain why it is somehow not acceptable to conform to the MOS regarding stylistic issues. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I suspect that the contributor (who has reposted the information again) has a WP:Conflict of interest. Shane Callahan does not seem to be a recognized rhetorical scholar or theorist, nor does he meet the criteria for WP:Notability. According to Callahan's Amazon biography, he is a freelance writer. Self-publishing a 50-page book on rhetoric doesn't make him an expert, certainly not in the same league as Chaim Perelman or Kenneth Burke. I've deleted that section again.DeerJerky (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Where are the Women? Adding Rhetoricians and Expanding the Canon: Aspasia, Christine de Pizan, and Julian of Norwich

Many groups of rhetoricians been consistently ignored by dominant narratives in traditional histories of Rhetoric, and are mostly ignored on this page, whose history is also limiting. For nearly two decades, established scholars like Cheryl Glenn,(ref)Glenn, Cheryl. Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity Through the Renaissance. Southern Illinois University Press, 1997. (/ref) Andrea Lunsford,(ref) Lunsford, Andrea (ed.) Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition. University of Pittsburg Press, 1995.(/ref) Michelle Baliff,(ref) Ballif, Michelle (ed.) Theorizing Histories of Rhetoric. Southern Illinois University Press, 2013.(/ref) Jackie Jones Royster,(ref)Royster, Jackie Jones. Traces of a Stream. University of Pittsburg Press, 2000. (/ref) Roberta Binkley and Carol Lipson,(ref) Lipson, Carol S and Roberta Binkley. Ancient Non-Greek Rhetorics. Parlor Press, 2004.(/ref) Susan Jarratt,(ref)Jarratt, Susan. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Southern Illinois University Press, 1991.(/ref) and others, have advocated for the inclusion of the rhetorics of women, non-Western peoples, and others who are typically left out of these histories. In the field, there has been increasing interest in alternative or parallel narratives supplement the traditional Aristotelian tradition, so I'm surprised none of this work hasn't been included on the page yet.

At the very least we should open this page up to be more inclusive of Rhetoric's vast scope, because the format can certainly allow it. What about a section for Women Rhetoricians or expanded scope? Other suggestions? Here is a list someone began to make: list of female rhetoricians.

While there is one sentence in reference to Aspasia, Julian of Norwich, and Christine de Pizan, they do not have their own sections, and I think they should. Here are the proposed sections which would fit in with the scope of the article and further flesh out the history of Rhetoric as a discipline

Aspasia was as an active member of one of the most famous intellectual circles in Athens. While some debate persists as to whether or not she was a real person, Susan Jarratt and Rory Ong argue (ref) Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition. University of Pittsburg Press, 1995. 10. (/ref) that because allusions were made to Aspasia by four of Socrates’ pupils, Plutarch’s assertion that Aspasia was a real person helps solidify her existence. Aspasia may have helped Pericles compose his funeral oration, but her influence on Pericles is often distorted because of the use of labels like courtesan and mistress. In the Menexenus, Plato’s Socrates reports that Aspasia was his teacher: ‘That I should be able to speak is no great wonder, Menexenus, considering that I have an excellent mistress in the art of rhetoric—she who has made so many good speakers, and one who was the best among all the Hellenes—Pericles, the son of Xanthippus (par 235e). Aspasia’s influence has also been noted by Cicero.(ref) Cicero. De Inventione. Tr. H. Hubbell I.xxxI 51-52(/ref) Though Aspasia left no writings of her own, her influence has made her a profoundly influential figure in ancient western rhetoric, and as Madeline Henry argues, stands as an example of our ignorance of the lives of all women in ancient Greece.(ref) Henry, Madeline M. Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition. Oxford University Press, 1995.(/ref)


Christine de Pizan is considered to be Europe’s first professional female writer and has had an important influence on modern rhetorical studies. It is believed that her growth as a rhetorician began through her realization that “her gender would cause her authority as a writer of serious prose to be called into question.” (ref) Jenny Redfern, "Christine de Pisan and The Treasure of the City of Ladies: A Medieval Rhetorician and Her Rhetoric" in Lunsford, Andrea A, ed. Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women and in the Rhetorical Tradition (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), p. 74 (/ref) She wrote both poetry and prose works such as biographies and books containing practical advice for women, completing forty-one works during a 30-year career, (ref) Ibid, 72. (/ref)and leaving an important mark in a field otherwise and thus far dominated by men.


Julian of Norwich is a “spectacular exception to the general rule that medieval women did not write books” (ref) Glenn, Cheryl. Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity Through the Renaissance. Southern Illinois University Press, 1997. 93. (/ref), during a time when memory, reading aloud, and listening were popular literary practices. Julian of Norwich can be seen as a pioneering feminist who argued for women’s place within a masculine church, working toward a theology of inclusion on the belief that all of humankind are created in God’s image. (ref) Ibid., 99 (/ref) Her rhetorical praxis paved the way for Margery Kempe, who went to "Mother Julian" for study and guidance regarding her own mystical revelations. Though neither woman acknowledged formal training in Latin rhetoric or composition, (ref) Ibid, 103(/ref) both have earned prominence in Middle English religious prose and the history of Rhetoric.

ProfessorShrugEmoji (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rhetoric. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

In the section titled "Medieval to Enlightenment", the word Renaissance in the fourth paragraph needs to be capitalized. "Rhetoric would not regain its classical heights until the renaissance, but new writings did advance rhetorical thought." Facts4543 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rhetoric. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Krista Ratcliffe Notability?

Is Krista Ratcliffe notable enough to include in this? If her entry needs copy checking as it is sloppily written--Barbicanf (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree this entry seems to read like either a self-edit or poorly researched contribution. I can find little to no sources discussing her work as a significantly notable contribution. MrEarlGray (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ratcliffe meets notability requirements for academics as laid out in [[Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)]], especially the first 4 criteria:

  • The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  • The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  • The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
  • The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

To meet notability requirements, however, an academic only has to meet one of these criteria.

See Google Scholar page for number of times the work mentioned in the edit has been cited, and [6] for bio regarding awards and leadership. Also, it appears that Undercommonsatrix has edited/revised. DarthVetter (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The page you have linked to is a 404. I cannot also see how she has offered a 'significant impact in their scholarly discipline', because it seems her work is merely pushing a ham-fisted 'feminist' interpretation rather than anything of earnest academic merit. MrEarlGray (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for the error in her bio page - see Ratcliffe bio. I can't really address your other comment except to remark that it seems to be in violation of multiple expected behaviors laid out in the UCoC. DarthVetter (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

declarability, enunciability, describability

Sometimes mathematics, experiencing, emotions, complex relationships of a vast connectome of people (and the Minimaxly appropriate decision and [inter]action) are hard to describe in common language.

Social Media and Political statements?

In light of a polarized political landscape, I believe there should be more mention of social media rhetoric, and how it has divided partisan groups. At the very least, we can mention social culture. For instance, memes and GIFs have a rhetoric of their own; they do make a wider statement, whether social, cultural, or political. I admit it would be odd to put "memes" near "enthymemes," but it does have some relation. AnnieWang1 (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dvzv, Guitarhorn, Inggrit olivin, MousaHasan, Larry Sugisaki, Awouignandji.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haleyhelmick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drashti 2024.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Undercommonsatrix.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bkissinger04.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cc3531 (article contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhetoric/Archive_2&oldid=1191602769"