Talk:Apologia
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apologia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Propose removal of content concerning re: Benoit and apology
[edit]The Benoit discussion beginning with:
Other scholars of rhetoric propose alternative conceptualizations available within the scope of apology W. L. Benoit identifies five major strategies that intersect with Ware and Linkugel.[7]
confuses 'apology' and 'apologia' and expands the word 'apology' to present aspects of cited book that are beyond the scope of the books content on apology. For these two reasons, and because off-topic and out of scope content cannot be improved to fix the problem, I propose that the W. L. Benoit content be removed.
KSci (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that there are no objections, this change will be implemented shortly.
The Academic Analysis section content is about rhetoric, which is contrary to the meaning of "apologia"
[edit]The content of the academic analysis section does not appear relevant to the topic. I propose that this content be removed.
Negative connotations
[edit]In the modern usage section I think there should be a paragraph on historical apologetics, mainly colonial and imperial, or a reference to revisionism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- In colonial apologetics it is the use of colonial histories being used at face value without critique of their function or bias Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)