Talk:Style over substance

	This Logic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Improvements

And, user:teratornis, I/we welcome your improvements! Just stubbin' it out... human 20:45, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Contrast with CP?

Should be added that it is not a fallacy in literary, film and performing art criticism.

Do we have a page that talk about the alleged use of argument "your words to substance ratio is very high" due to their inability to comprehend the argument, or just being blatantly wrong/stupid? maybe we need a page to distinguish that with the stuff on this page. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If we do, that is so Andy-specific it should be in the cp namespace. ħuman 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

On January 31, 2010, I transwikiied content from the deleted Wikipedia article "Style over substance fallacy". For CC-By-SA compliance, the history, including list of contributors, to that article is as follows. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

   * (cur) (prev)  15:56, 1 January 2010 Mark PEA (talk | contribs | block) (5,037 bytes) (→References) (rollback | undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 15:55, 1 January 2010 Mark PEA (talk | contribs | block) (5,034 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 20:16, 31 December 2009 WaltCip (talk | contribs | block) (4,814 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style over substance fallacy) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 15:41, 22 December 2009 Mark PEA (talk | contribs | block) (4,459 bytes) (→Example One) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 17:52, 18 December 2009 Black Falcon (talk | contribs | block) (4,367 bytes) (→Example Two: Wikipedia is not the place to air personal frustrations and grievances, no matter how well-founded, with marketing or management) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 03:13, 21 October 2009 RCIWesner (talk | contribs | block) m (4,802 bytes) (→Example Five: What do reverends have to do with this? Still illustrates, but better left out.) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 04:29, 19 October 2009 SieBot (talk | contribs | block) m (4,806 bytes) (robot Adding: ro:Stil în loc de substanţă) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 14:37, 19 September 2009 86.147.1.97 (talk | block) (4,770 bytes) (Created header) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 20:01, 12 September 2009 Xme (talk | contribs | block) m (4,800 bytes) (Added Template:Original research tag to article. using Friendly) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 16:10, 17 August 2009 Chzz (talk | contribs | block) (4,758 bytes) (unref'd, not needeing more) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 12:35, 16 June 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs | block) m (4,756 bytes) (Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 09:49, 16 June 2009 79.101.174.192 (talk | block) (4,738 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 03:53, 15 June 2009 32.139.115.43 (talk | block) (4,727 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 17:37, 26 March 2009 24.235.252.137 (talk | block) (5,235 bytes) (remove reference to Ford and Vauxhall trademarks.) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 13:22, 9 March 2009 144.162.82.182 (talk | block) (4,609 bytes) (removed POV by generalizing to all films) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 03:03, 9 February 2009 Wallagawwa (talk | contribs | block) (4,627 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 03:03, 9 February 2009 Wallagawwa (talk | contribs | block) (4,621 bytes) (added an example) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 22:07, 8 January 2009 82.27.229.138 (talk | block) (4,102 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 00:14, 30 August 2008 71.202.65.243 (talk | block) (4,113 bytes) (→See also: Template:Relevance fallacies Template:Informal Fallacy) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 01:06, 19 August 2008 72.83.121.126 (talk | block) (4,091 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 04:51, 2 May 2008 199.184.238.217 (talk | block) (4,091 bytes) (minor edit for clarity) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 19:38, 8 April 2008 ContiAWB (talk | contribs | block) m (4,088 bytes) (Fixing links to Red herring and other general fixes using AWB) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 21:46, 12 January 2008 Pjrich (talk | contribs | block) (4,058 bytes) (removed filmmaking subsection: dealt not with the logical fallacy but with the artistic criticism of the same name) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 18:32, 8 January 2008 Wildroot (talk | contribs | block) (4,256 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 07:52, 14 December 2007 BrainMagMo (talk | contribs | block) (4,058 bytes) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 23:31, 12 November 2007 Toad of Steel (talk | contribs | block) (4,058 bytes) (Removed the word "pathetic" from example 5 per WP:NPOV) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 08:07, 26 October 2007 Rubicon (talk | contribs | block) m (4,067 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 58.105.28.25. using TW) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 08:07, 26 October 2007 58.105.28.25 (talk | block) (4,083 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 02:14, 15 September 2007 67.158.76.243 (talk | block) (4,067 bytes) (→Exceptions: rm POV implication that critical theory is nonsense by ordinary standards) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 02:33, 8 May 2007 24.192.16.130 (talk | block) (4,105 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 04:27, 25 March 2007 Anon The Nitpicker (talk | contribs | block) m (Removed last line of Example Four) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 04:07, 23 March 2007 Noclevername (talk | contribs | block) m (minor edit) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 18:21, 20 February 2007 205.174.116.227 (talk | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 04:15, 8 February 2007 Jeff Silvers (talk | contribs | block) m (Removed "the" from intro sentence.) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 18:16, 20 January 2007 Noclevername (talk | contribs | block) m (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 18:15, 20 January 2007 Noclevername (talk | contribs | block) m (→See also) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 18:04, 20 January 2007 Noclevername (talk | contribs | block) (added see-also) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 21:11, 10 January 2007 AgentPeppermint (talk | contribs | block) m (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 21:10, 10 January 2007 AgentPeppermint (talk | contribs | block) m (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 06:13, 7 January 2007 69.251.71.202 (talk | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 08:00, 3 January 2007 Andeggs (talk | contribs | block) (changing template) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 06:22, 9 December 2006 Zetawoof (talk | contribs | block) (rm digg.com link and text) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 21:47, 17 November 2006 63.118.84.124 (talk | block) (Corporate style over substance) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 16:26, 5 January 2006 207.75.145.34 (talk | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 14:36, 27 December 2005 82.198.0.28 (talk | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 14:34, 27 December 2005 82.198.0.28 (talk | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 13:02, 21 November 2005 Knucmo2 (talk | contribs | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 16:42, 14 October 2005 70.26.11.93 (talk | block) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 23:38, 26 September 2005 Knucmo2 (talk | contribs | block) (typo) (undo)
   * (cur) (prev) 23:37, 26 September 2005 Knucmo2 (talk | contribs | block) m (typo) (undo)

What happened to it on Wikipedia? - π 13:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Style over substance fallacy, not enough good sources, original research, the usual WP crap. -- Nx / talk 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that never slowed us down. Some of the examples could do with tiding up a bit. Some more depth and this could be our next Poe's Law (we are three on Google for this). - π 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples

These are rather miscellaneous. They seem to be examples of different evasive argument techniques (ad hominem, stonewalling, Scotsman fallacy, red herring, etc.) & it's not really clear how they relate to style over substance as explained in the article intro. I guess at some level they're focusing on superficial aspects of an argument rather than the content, but they're not really about using style as an argument tool, which is how we've defined this fallacy. I think we could do with some better examples, or lose these. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

None of them were actually even examples since the two valid ones missed the "must be used as a component of an argument" point of a fallacy. King Skeleton (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

First read as

"Skype over substance fallacy" - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)