Talk:Polemic: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

{{Old AfD multi

~~{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=~~

| date = July 2, 2007

| result = '''No consensus'''

| page = Polemic

| link =

| caption =

| date2 = November 5, 2016

| result2 = '''nomination withdrawn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=748194580&oldid=748191401]'''

| page2 = Polemic (2nd nomination)

| link2 =

| caption2 =

| small =  no

| collapse =  no

| numbered =  no

| type =  article

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|1=

{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Wahrmund |date= 28 May 2012 |small= }}

{{WikiProject ~~Islam|class=Start~~Religion|importance=~~Top~~mid}}

{{WikiProject ~~Religion|class=Start~~Philosophy|importance=~~Top~~Mid}}

{{WikiProject ~~Christianity|class=Start~~Linguistics|importance=~~Top~~Mid|~~theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance~~applied=~~high~~Yes}}

{{WikiProject ~~Judaism|class=Start~~Literature|importance=~~Top~~Mid}}

}}

~~== Problem with "history" ==~~

~~"Polemic journalism was common in continental Europe, when libel laws were not as stringent."~~

So common when? 1600s? 1800s? like 25 years ago? Probably sometime after the printing press was invented but even that's a guess —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.255.13.82|96.255.13.82]] ([[User talk:96.255.13.82|talk]]) 05:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

~~== Definition ==~~

Are polemics always meant to "stir up trouble" (or even aggressive, as wiktionary claims)? The English word may differ from the Dutch word 'polemiek', but that has a much more neutral meaning, just arguing (in writing). Then again, it seems to derive from the Greek word 'polemos', meaning 'war', which ''does'' sound rather aggressive :) . Maybe in Dutch the meaning of the word has changed over time, but I know it mostly as scientific or philosophical arguing and science and especially philosophy couldn't exist without arguing. So it's just 'daily routine'. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

~~== bad examples ==~~

~~the two examples are bad~~

~~The forensice medical one appears to lack any "actuality" .. its hypothetical that someone could get polemic about it.~~

~~but generally i guess they write civil dry formal notifications based on fact not political discussion~~

~~And then the next one is also medical, and even more obscure in meaning. .. I really doubt anyones gone polemic on that topic~~

04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.92.40.202|202.92.40.202]] ([[User talk:202.92.40.202|talk]])

:Agreed, they're completely irrelevant. (I'll never understand why scientists, especially in the medical field, constantly redefine words and create superfluous neologisms from Latin and Ancnent Greek roots they apparently don't actually understand.) I'm going to go ahead and strike it since these examples, as they say, aren't even wrong. [[User:Dlainhart|dlainhart]] ([[User talk:Dlainhart|talk]]) 08:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

~~== demolished? ==~~

"Orwell demolished Swingler's arguments." This is clearly not neutral. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:218.153.118.200|218.153.118.200]] ([[User talk:218.153.118.200|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/218.153.118.200|contribs]])

:I've removed the line from the article. I'm of the opinion that the fact that he was permitted to respond in sidebars as long as the article is notable, however to say that he "destroyed" the arguments is a value judgement at worst, and POV at best. (I will point out that I've never read any of the writings refered to in that paragraph.)

~~:If anyone wants to try and rework the sentence, feel free to do so. [[User:156.34.238.73|156.34.238.73]] 01:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)~~

~~== Magazine ==~~

Hello. I would suggest that your discussion of the magazine Polemic be made a seperate article? Just a thought. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:129.100.243.208|129.100.243.208]] ([[User talk:129.100.243.208|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/129.100.243.208|contribs]])

~~== Categorisation ==~~

I originally removed this article from [[:Category:Theology]] because, well, I didn't read the part about it being a special branch of theology. And I thought it a bit misleading: although theology can be a subject of polemic, it can also be on other topics. But what else ''is'' it? I'm trying to decide whether to put it under [[Dialectic]] or [[Rhetoric]] and am at a loss (so much for a liberal education). [[User:Cleduc|Cleduc]] 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

~~: I've decided on [[:Category:Rhetoric]]. Thwop. Let's see if it sticks. [[User:Cleduc|Cleduc]] 20:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)~~

~~==Modern Examples==~~

~~Could Ann Coulter be included? I read the NYT calling her a polemicist. Why or why not?~~

~~:Done, including a number of other polemicists. [[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 16:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~

~~I also recommend including Walter Kaufmann [[User:Hodgsonwj|Hodgsonwj]] ([[User talk:Hodgsonwj|talk]]) 01:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)~~

Some individual keeps removing Anne Coulter's name for the examples list. I believe is is quite well established that she is among these ranks. Hate or love her, that simply IS what she is. Admittedly so. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.228.200.171|198.228.200.171]] ([[User talk:198.228.200.171|talk]]) 00:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

~~==Explain or undo redirect==~~

[[Provocateur]] redirects here without explanation. The word provocateur does not appear in the Polemic article, except in the redirect notice. Nothing here gives the ignorant Wikipedia surfer a clue why [[Borat]] is called a provocateur. I can see a faint semantic link, but nothing that justifies a redirect. Could the editor responsible please either insert material that justifies the redirect, or else restore [[Provocateur]]. [[User:Copey 2|Copey 2]] 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

~~Actually, nothing in the original stub Provocateur article helps with the Borat article either. [[User:Copey 2|Copey 2]] 10:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)~~

~~== Libel laws ==~~

''Polemic journalism was common in continental Europe when libel laws weren't stringent,'' says the text. Libel laws, though -- what are they? A link to an appropriate wikipedia article would be welcomed here. [[User:Lennarth|lennarth]] ([[User talk:Lennarth|talk]]) 10:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

~~== What's with the plural and the redirect from the singular? ==~~

~~<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">~~

:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

~~The result of the move request was: '''Page moved'''. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 15:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~

~~----~~

~~[[:Polemics]] → [[Polemic]] —~~

I believe that the pluralising of "polemic" to "polemics" in the title is wrong and misleading. The Merriam-Webster entry referenced in the article uses the singular [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polemic polemic], as does the [http://oed.com Oxford English Dictionary]:

~~<blockquote>B. n.~~

1. A controversial argument; a strong verbal or written attack on a person, opinion, doctrine, etc.; (as a mass noun) writing or opinion of this kind. Also: (in sing. and pl.) aggressive debate or controversy; the practice of engaging in such debate.

~~In Theol. polemics (as a method of conducting debate) may be contrasted with irenics.</blockquote>~~

The plural "polemics" gives the wrong impression that the term primarily denotes a branch of learning such as mathematics, semantics etc., which, according to the OED, it only does as an obscure part of theology.

~~I'd therefore strongly urge that the article be renamed to "polemic" and that a redirect be placed from "polemics". --[[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 20:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)~~

:On the contrary, the [[Wiktionary:polemics|Wiktionary definition of "polemics"]] (which has two valid sources of its own) matches the description found in this article, while "polemic" is used here only as an adjective. Fact is, "polemics", in this usage, is an [[Wiktionary:Appendix:Glossary#uncountable|uncountable]] noun, not a plural noun. "Polemic" is a descriptive term, referring either to a person involved in ''polemics'' or to an argument or controversy which seems to fall under the broader scope of ''polemics'', so I think the singular form could be mentioned as a section under this article, if you want. And if I was interested in citing Wiktionary itself as a source {{=)|wink}}, I'd point out that the first [[Wiktionary:polemic|Wiktionary def. for "polemic"]] says "usually plural". That's a fallacy since it's not really plural – but you get what it means. Lastly, according to the above-mentioned definition, "polemics" does not necessarily refer to theology, and your usage of the word "obscure" has no basis in any of the sources mentioned. -'''[[User:Garrettw87|Garrett W.]]''' {[[User_talk:Garrettw87|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Garrettw87|✍]]} 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

::Neither of the two sources in the [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polemics Wictionary article on ''polemics''] is contemporary, and your assertion that the term needn't be confined to the theological definition is only supported by the assumption that it may have some currency outside its "especially" theological usage attested by the sources. That assumption may be rather tenuous in contemporary English.

::My use of the term "obscure" rests on the intuition that "polemics" as the particular branch of theology concerned with aggressive disputation is no more common in contemporay English than its [[antonym]] of "irenics". A quick check through the first twenty-or-so [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+polemics instances of ''polemics''] in the New York Times confirms this intuition, as none of them exemplifies the theological sense; they're all plurals of the basic English noun "polemic", plain and simple.

::A quick check through the first twenty [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+polemic occurrences of polemic] in the New York Times also reveals sixteen of them to be nouns rather than the adjectives.

::As a matter of fact, you might find it hard to uncover a single instance of "polemics" from, let's say, within the last twenty years or so, that isn't a simple plural of the plain old noun "polemic".

::Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary are the most authoritative sources on English usage in the US and the UK, respectively. Both of them have more than a century's worth of scholarly excellence to their credit. Both of them have an entry on the plain noun "polemic" but neither has a separate entry on the fancy notion of "polemics". Are you really challenging their authority on the grounds that the [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polemic Wictionary entry on "polemic"], (whose credibility is undermined by the embarrassing fact that its current IPA transcription of /pʌˈlemɪk/ gets the first vowel wrong) for whatever wayward reason of its own, says "usually plural" in its first definition of the noun? [[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 02:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

~~:::Seems like a sound enough argument. But just so you know, moving this article to "Polemic" will require additional action:~~

~~:::*Redirecting "Polemics" and "Talk:Polemics" to their new non-"s" equivalents~~

:::*Refactoring this article to reflect the meaning of "polemic" as a noun (especially in the lead), while the current lead text defining "polemics" should probably not be removed but rather relegated to its own section

~~:::*Possibly editing the relevant Wiktionary pages if necessary~~

~~:::In response to "''Are you really challenging their authority ... first definition of the noun?''": Of course not – that's why I made it small and put a winking smiley in there. {{=)}}~~

:::Lastly, I want to say that my renaming of this article was one of my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Garrettw87 early edits] (sheepish grin). -'''[[User:Garrettw87|Garrett W.]]''' {[[User_talk:Garrettw87|☎]] [[Special:Contributions/Garrettw87|✍]]} 09:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

~~::::Cool. Let's make those changes, shall we? [[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 12:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)~~

:::::Thanks for initiating the move procedure. You might have been able to sidestep the 7-day discussion period by treating the change as a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_requests an uncontroversial request held up by a disambiguation page]. [[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>

~~:Move done; please update the article accordingly. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~

~~:::Updates made. Thanks for moving the article! [[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~

== Administrator assistance had been requested to restore the prematurely closed AfD discussion. ==

~~== Marxist and related currents ==~~

'''[[User:KSci|KSci ]]'''[[User talk:KSci|(talk)]] 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

== The following was written but could not be saved because the AfD discussion was prematurely closed without allowing sufficient time for all input (at least a week). ==

Not mentioned and relatively a well known facet, with famous performers including most of the big names, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

::: @Chiswick Chap and @Safiel, I think we must base any rationales for noteworthiness one the WP Rules and Guidelines. The word "potential" does not, for example, qualify as a noteworthiness criteria, the word is not found in WP:GNG. Also, the number of sources mentioning a subject is specifically excluded as a criteria. A vast number of sources can be found on the topic of bathroom wallpaper, but I think we will agree that bathroom wallpaper is not a noteworthy WP topic. That fact that authors have characterized the positions of others as polemic does not establish polemic as a noteworthy topic in its own right. To establish polemic as warranting an article we need ''second and third party sources stating that plemic is a subject of note in its own right''. I do not believe it is not enough to find sources that use the term to characterize the positions of others, particularly if it is used as a pejorative word to stigmatize views whom one disagrees. WP:GNG states:

~~== notable polemicists ==~~

:::- ''"'Significant coverage' '''addresses the topic directly and in detail.'''"'' - We need sources specifically addressing the subject matter of 'polemic', which is a very different test from finding examples where the word is an adjective.

The whole section is unsupported by any sources. When I read this section I wonder if all of the names are there by the preference of a single WP editor. Who considers these writers Polemics? Deciding who to list in a section on notable personalities can in itself be Original Research so these sections are tricky endeavors. [[Special:Contributions/97.85.185.160|97.85.185.160]] ([[User talk:97.85.185.160|talk]]) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:::- ''"Reliable" means '''sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability''', per the reliable source guideline."'' - We need reliable sources describing a topic 'polemic' as an independent topic, and again this is more than finding people using the term as an adjective.

::At least for the time being, its not true that "the whole section is unsupported by any sources". The section starts with the sentence "The following are some people associated with "polemic"[6]:" and the footnote refers to http* //www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467241/polemic . For sure, citation format is not as it should be and the URL is mistyped. Obviously, it should be http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/467241/polemic . There exist such a page, but britannica.com requires some kind of registration and I don't have access to the article itself so I'm not editing the footnote. It will be nice if someone with full access to the article do some editing. Anyway, there seems to be a source and I have an impression that all those "notable polemicists" are taken from Britannica. If its not the case and if some Wikipedists are editing that section as to add some names but still as if they are taken from Britannica, there's a problem.[[User:Neophyrigian|Neophyrigian]] ([[User talk:Neophyrigian|talk]]) 12:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::- ''"'''Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.'''"'' - The sources *should be independent*, that is not tied to an issue or position, showing that polemic is more than just a common pejorative adjective.

:I started the section a while back as a fairly literal translation of a corresponding section in the German Wikipedia article on polemic. Ever since the addition of that section, the most popular type of edit to this article has been people dropping by to plug their favorite polemicist, which is rather annoying. I wouldn't mind dropping the section. [[User:ARK|ARK]] ([[User talk:ARK|talk]]) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to drop the section of all authors who do not consider themselves polemic writers. Nietzsche is someone you can leave because he has called himself that in his own works. Sam Harris on the other hand has never referred to himself as a polemic writer and until we can ascertain the validity of such claims, we should not make them. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.235.202.42|24.235.202.42]] ([[User talk:24.235.202.42|talk]]) 16:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

:That's not the way to search for facts. Someone's idea on himself/herself might not supply us with the facts. Applying Wikipedia standards will be sufficient. That's -mainly- to say: If there is a -serious- source saying that someone is a notable polemicist, then we can list him/her as so, citing the source.[[User:Neophyrigian|Neophyrigian]] ([[User talk:Neophyrigian|talk]]) 12:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

::I found some of the listed names [http://www.letras.ufrj.br/veralima/veralima_2003/8_extras/04_britannica_articles/32_main.html in this Britannica section], but certainly not the whole list as it exists today. The "notable polemicists" entries should either be individually cited here, or it should be uncontroversially conveyed in the BLP of the notable person. [[User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] ([[User talk:Xenophrenic|talk]]) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems very odd to have a list of people that is alphabetized by first name. It's the sort of thing that makes librarians like me want to engage in polemics against Wikipedia. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/157.242.204.121|157.242.204.121]] ([[User talk:157.242.204.121|talk]]) 01:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

::: I believe we need more than just the use of the use of the adjective in published works to justify a stand-alone article — otherwise we are in violation of the rule stating that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A collection of people writing that one thing or another is polemic doesn't do this. The term to a great extent is subjective, so a history is not defined by examples alone. We need sources describing the subject of the article 'polemic' as a topic of note in its own right.

~~=== Maximus Planudes is *not* a *Turkish* scholar and theologian ===~~

Article states as "Maximus Planudes (Turkish scholar and theologian)". For sure he is not. [[Maximus Planudes|He]] is a "'''Byzantine''' grammarian and theologian". There's a footnote for this "knowledge" referring to Britannica. As I stated above, I don't have full access to britannica.com and I don't have the printed form of Britannica at hand so I'm not editing it. Googling "Maximus Planudes (Turkish scholar and theologian)" gives some results related with Britannica but I can't see that expression on the pages. Anyway, it seems that for some reason Britannica's online version wrote something like that on somewhere, but this is -for sure- is not true. At the first sight it sounds as if its a joke or some kind of vandalism. I'm not editing it because I don't know what to do if the source (Britannica) writes so. It has problems to alter something as opposed to the source which is cited. Someone with access to Britannica should check it and edit in some way, if there's a nice way to edit it.[[User:Neophyrigian|Neophyrigian]] ([[User talk:Neophyrigian|talk]]) 13:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

~~== Kind of confusing language? ==~~

::: Additionally, based on WP:MERGREASON reason #3: ''Text: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.'' The years this article failed to develop and sustained very poor quality provide the best available indicator of its likelihood of being expanded into a full article in a reasonable period of time in the future. This lack of interest is also a valid measure of the topic's notability.

This is in reference both to some slightly vague/confusing syntax and to the actual content of the article. The former is probably the more easily fixed (certainly it requires less familiarity with the subject), so the latter is the one I will mainly address here. For example: "polemic" can also be used as a synonym for "polemicist". And, um, admittedly that may already make talking about polemic(s) inherently confusing, but perhaps some effort should be dedicated to clarifying such. For example, I edited "A polemic" in the last sentence of the "Overview" section to just "Polemic", to refer as a whole to that style of argument instead of to a specific work ''of'' polemic writing, and also to distinguish it from a person who ''is'' "a polemic". Other changes of this nature might help the article make more sense (to me at least, as I am far from an expert in this area).

Additionally, the explanation of what polemic ''is'', in addition to being a bit syntactically vague, makes the most sense if the reader already has a firm and specific idea of what is meant by things like "dispute" vs. "debate" vs. "argument" (to be honest, I don't myself know if there really ''is'' a specific and distinct definition for each). Is it possible to be more specific here? And again, I might be able to fix the language but then someone else would have to back me up on the content. Thanks - [[User:ReySquared|ReySquared]] ([[User talk:ReySquared|talk]]) 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::If the topic grows sufficiently to warrant an independent article, a separate article on 'polemic' can then be reasonably reinstated.

~~== Confusion with Apologetics ==~~

:::'''[[User:KSci|KSci ]]'''[[User talk:KSci|(talk)]] 21:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am still not sure how this is different than Apologetics even after reading this article. I have very little knowledge in this area, but hopefully there is someone familiar with theology that can help.

~~[[User:Talgris|Talgris]] ([[User talk:Talgris|talk]]) 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)~~

:::: Afd discussions ''can'' be closed early, like all deletion discussions on Wikipedia. In this case, I think the early close was a bit rash. Nevertheless, realistically speaking, the likelihood of the end-result being something else than a "keep" is small, IMHO. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 21:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

~~The difference is described in the first line in each article:~~

==AfD reopened==

~~"Apologetics (from Greek απολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason."~~

~~"A polemic (pronounced /pəˈlɛmɪk/) is a variety of argument or controversy made against one opinion, doctrine, or person."~~

I have reopened the AfD discussion in light of the objection. Be advised that AfD is NOT a discussion forum for pursuing a merge and if support for deletion does not appear, most likely another editor will again procedurally close the discussion. [[User:Safiel|Safiel]] ([[User talk:Safiel|talk]]) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

One is a defense of a particular position, the other is an attack. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.30.217.147|76.30.217.147]] ([[User talk:76.30.217.147|talk]]) 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Safiel, I once again closed the AfD (I think). I didn't expect opposition, and have no interest in precipitating controversy. I think it would have been more appropriate to permit sufficient time for all interested parties to weigh in on the topic - and give me time to respond to the more recent posts (the abrupt closure prevented me from saving a response I was writing, which was pretty darned frustrating (just FYI).

~~== Far Too Much Polemic Here. Seems The Mere Topic Incites Bellicosity. ==~~

Thank you for your efforts! I consider this subject resolved.

~~Whose idiocy is it that nixed so much as a mention of the plural form of the word, 'polemics'? ~~

It's commonly understood to signify 'the study of or interest in this type of discourse. Some control freak (I call them Career Hall Monitors) made an edict that folks should hunt somewhere else to confirm that it's a valid word form? Such people are ubiquitous and exasperating door stops. [[User:Mykstor|Mykstor]] ([[User talk:Mykstor|talk]]) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

~~== Why did they equate polemic with the logical fallacy Argumentum Ad Hominem? ==~~

Well thank you for updating me. [[User:Bebe Jazzy|Bebe Jazzy]] ([[User talk:Bebe Jazzy|talk]]) 07:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

~~In the first sentence it says, "A polemic is when an argument, debate, or opinion leans toward attacking the other person as opposed to the discussion at hand."~~

Ad hominem from Wikipedia: "Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument"

~~Second, why is this under WikiProject Christianity? Am I sensing some sort of bias here?~~

~~[[User:Dominiscide|Dominiscide]] ([[User talk:Dominiscide|talk]]) 04:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)~~

== About the examples of controversial emojis ==

~~== Because they are wrong! ==~~

I would like to understand why did you consider that my contribution was not right for this page. I think that the examples I gave are relevant recent and original examples that illustrate what is a polemic. Emojis are a sociological and serious subject today since they contribute to build the online (digital) identity.

I'm just going to go ahead and change that. It may seem like and odd question but wouldn't all this be better in a section about argument? Maybe add a 'terms used' or 'types of argument' section to the 'argument' entry (the debate entry is already saturated with the peculiar well educated American understanding of formal scholastic debate). Yes some polemic is ad hominem (Mirriam Webster does not capitalise this phrase and I am going to resist the trend towards capitalisation with polemical vigour, Vigour I say!).

I'm looking forward to hear about your arguments

How is this term peculiar to christianity (they don't deserve a capital letter)? Why is it that a polemic against Christianity (oh OK they can have one) gets special treatment but if I say 'the universe does not notice you clinking bells together and your chanting about Hare is just annoying' then somehow that polemic gets the Christian treatment first before the unwitting Krishna-ite can look up what was meant by the guru who said 'ignore him, he's just a Polemist' (their lot all put capital letters on things that they don't understand). I had to put a little bit of ad hominem there at the end. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.6.41.253|86.6.41.253]] ([[User talk:86.6.41.253|talk]]) 09:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you [[User:AnasBARAKAT TPT|AnasBARAKAT TPT]] ([[User talk:AnasBARAKAT TPT|talk]]) 16:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

:I have refactored the above to remove the name of the editor who reverted the edit because that is not the purpose of an article talk page. The question here concerns whether a section on emojis should be included.

:Articles would expand forever if everything remotely connected with the subject was included, and that would make it hard for readers to find useful and properly sourced text. What [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary reliable source]] has described the emojis issue as a significant example of a ''polemic''? The added text ([[Special:Diff/785728037|diff]]) is not suitable for this article, and it may not be suitable for any article as it appears to be an attempt to turn a passing fuss into something warranting encyclopedic attention. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 10:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

:: I mentioned articles from CNN tech and the Independent talking about "controversies" and "controversy" is a synonym of "polemic". I wanted to add an original example of polemic. I can agree with you when you say that the example is a little bit "remotely connected with the subject". However, I don't agree with you when you say that "it may not be suitable for any article". The usage of emoji is a reality today and it's directly related to the very sociological subject of the online/digital identity construction. My contribution can be totally relevant to show something more interesting and polemic than a neutral presentation of different existing emojis in the page "emoji" for instance. [[User:AnasBARAKAT TPT|AnasBARAKAT TPT]] ([[User talk:AnasBARAKAT TPT|talk]]) 16:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

~~== Satirists as Polemicists ==~~

:::That is not correct. Please consult a better dictionary. You do not seem to understand at all what "polemic" means, or what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 13:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

::::I hope you can explain me what is a polemic better than oxford dictionary: "A strong verbal or written attack on someone or something." and "(usually polemics) The practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute." So I didn't invented the link with the word controversy which I maintain is a synonym. I am open to debate but with relevant arguments. Besides, an encyclopaedia is about knowledge as you can find it in the Cambridge Dictionary. So if the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to share knowledge, I think that giving examples is relevant to explain notions and illustrate them. You find examples in all the encyclopaedias. I can understand that you find these examples a kind of "light" examples of controversies. However, pretending that I don't know what is the purpose of an encyclopaedia and what is a polemic, is something else. I don't think you are right.[[User:AnasBARAKAT TPT|AnasBARAKAT TPT]] ([[User talk:AnasBARAKAT TPT|talk]]) 17:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Not intentionally trying to have a discussion on the subject of the article. Wondering if the article could include satirists such as [[Mark Twain]] and [[Jon Stewart]]. [[User:Jrun|jrun]] ([[User talk:Jrun|talk]]) 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

:::::The same editor has addressed the same issue with much the same text over at [[Emoji]], where it belongs. [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

::::::It was removed without any explanation [[User:AnasBARAKAT TPT|AnasBARAKAT TPT]] ([[User talk:AnasBARAKAT TPT|talk]]) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

::::::If it belongs anywhere, that is. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

:::::::I can agree with you to say that this is not the most relevant example of polemic to add to the "polemic" page but removing my contribution from the "Emoji" page is absurd for me, except if someone have a problem with controversial emojis. This is a subject to considerate about them. I didn't invent it and as I said it before it relates to the subject of online identity construction.[[User:AnasBARAKAT TPT|AnasBARAKAT TPT]] ([[User talk:AnasBARAKAT TPT|talk]]) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

== Is 'Animal Farm' a Polemic? ==

~~== "[[Polemic#Noted polemicists|Noted polemicists]]" section ==~~

I thought polemic had to be controversial. Unorthodox. To me Animal Farm is a satire, and orthodoxy, not a polemic, or controversial, and reflects the prevailing orthodoxy with regard to the Soviet Union and totalitarianism, though I concede opinion of the Soviet Union, and by extension communism, was then at a post-war zenith. But opinion very rapidly reverted to the pre-war antagonism; the orthodoxy reflected in Orwell's work. More categorical examples of polemic abound, surely.

*Granted, I never even heard of the word ''polemic'' until a few minutes ago, but now that I've read the article and especially this section, I have to say that the section is a real problem because out of the many examples of the supposed polemicists, only three of them are sourced as such: [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]], [[Gore Vidal]] and [[William F. Buckley, Jr]]. It thus seems like people just popped in time to time and listed a person whose views they disagree with (not that I'm a fan of Hitler, but...). '''Erpert''' [[User talk:Erpert|WHAT DO YOU WANT???]] 08:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

IAside: ~~certainly~~Poor ~~agree~~Eric ~~that~~Blair; to have your work so consistently mis-understood! Reminds me of the ~~section~~often ~~needs~~expressed ~~some~~notion ~~quality~~1984 ~~control;~~is ~~maybe~~about totalitarianism. Well, yes, in a ~~link~~sense. Exclusively. Ah, no. It is equally relevant to the ~~polemics~~understanding ~~that~~of ~~each~~all ~~person~~forms ~~wrote~~of government, especially the evolution of forms of government; it is about the pervasive tendency toward authoritarianism, evident throughout human history [ref. Roman Empire], a tendency no less evident today in ~~order~~'democracies', rather than being just a denunciation of modern totalitarianism as such. <~~span style="font~~!-~~size~~- Template:Unsigned ~~smaller;"~~IP -->—  Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/~~199~~122.~~188~~151.~~193~~210.~~134~~84|~~199~~122.~~188~~151.~~193~~210.~~134~~84]] ([[User talk:~~199~~122.~~188~~151.~~193~~210.~~134~~84#top|talk]]) 2312:3128, 1911 ~~November~~June ~~2013~~2022 (UTC)</span>