This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

Please provide your opinions about merging with Argument and how to so so below: Thanks, D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

This sorry article seems to be largely based on Toulmin argumentation, but (apart from being almost citation-free) it manages not even to mention the man, his 1958 book The Uses of Argument, or his approach. There is a basic account at Stephen Toulmin#Argumentation but that really ought to be expanded, discussed, criticised, and richly cited here. One suitable source among many is

• Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart, eds. (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Springer-Verlag Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_3. ISBN  978-1-4020-4937-8. OCLC  82229075.

This whole topic needs a rather more scholarly treatment. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply