Does anybody feel like trying to come up 
with something more succinct?

OK, I'll drop the rhetorical, as it's not really rhetoric.

@@ -13,2 +13,2 @@
-<gloss>used to create a rhetorical question indicating that the speaker actually believes the opposite is true</gloss>
-<gloss>emphasizes a determination not to do something by means of a rhetorical question</gloss>
+<gloss>used to create a form of question indicating that the speaker actually believes the opposite is true</gloss>
+<gloss>emphasizes a determination not to do something, e.g. "Like hell I will!"</gloss>

See below.

Yes, you are correct on that point.

As we all know, we are trying to understand another language based upon the tools which we already possess. When we come to use "rhetorical question" to explain something, we know [or discover - if we did not know already] that the English dictionary tells us that it means "a question to which no answer is required".

It is a natural danger of the learning process that the student quickly spots that the most prominent words in the search are "ものか；もんか" and "rhetorical question".

Those are the words which tend to stick in the mind [indeed, to a degree we are all driven by key words - hence many of the disputes which arise out of contracts are often caused by the effect of the key words, as opposed to the totality of meaning contained in the terms and conditions].

In some respects, for the benefit of the student [and perhaps most of us too] everyday key words should be avoided where possible, thus, forcing he student to read the "small print" so to speak. If you are happy to change the meaning on this one, perhaps I could suggest a "brain stopping" word in the gloss, e.g.,

used to create a rhetorical question, but only in circumstances where the speaker actually believes the opposite is true; thus, emphasizing a determination by the speaker for the listeners not to do something by means of a rhetorical question

Apologies for the rambling!

Francis, aren't you making a case based on the English meaning of a "rhetorical question" rather than on what the Japanese terms ものか/もんか mean? I'd be happy to extend the entry based on evidence of the latter.

see below.

I have not made an amendment above because I don't want to bluntly oppose your views. However, although Rene's example may be typical, that does not take away from the point of my submission. If, in fact, the Japanese reading means only a situation where the speaker believes the opposite to what is said, then perhaps the gloss of a "rhetorical" should not be used. For example, the following would be a rhetorical question:-

[A manager is with his team of football players just prior to an important match and he says to the team], "Well lads, we've trained hard for this important match, we're going out there to give them all  we've got; and, are we going to win?

If the answer of that rhetorical question had to be "no" by definition, then I submit to Rene's example. However, it seems to me, as I stated before, the rhetorical question is one where the answer is obvious, be it positive or negative. Although, one has to say that the negative is frequently used in sarcasm, abuse and rowdy gatherings, like the old labour struggles of the UK, e.g., at the end of a speech, “Are we going to let the employers win this one?” However, the end rhetorical question may also be, “Are we all united in this fight?

Chino "All About Particles"

I agree that the original seems OK. I've restored it, and added Chino's version. She flags this as "masc" and the です versions as "fem".

@@ -12,1 +12,3 @@
-<gloss>used to create a rhetorical question indicating that the speaker actually believes the answer is so obvious that a response is not necessary. It is used both where the speaker is asserting something or opposing something.</gloss>
+<misc>&male;</misc>
+<gloss>used to create a rhetorical question indicating that the speaker actually believes the opposite is true</gloss>
+<gloss>emphasizes a determination not to do something by means of a rhetorical question</gloss>

-quoting Naoko Chino's 'All About Particles':
"[ものか/もんか] emphasizes a determination not to do something by means of 
a rhetorical question"
-quoting Meikyo:
「強く否定する気持ちを表す」, e.g. 「こんなに晴れているのに、雨なんか降るもん
か」
-I'm not sure how the original does not reflect the nature of a rhetorical 
question.  If I said "C'mon, is Sarah Palin _really_ smart?" that would seem to 
fit the bill here as an appropriate rhetorical question.

See below.

The original entry does not reflect the nature of a "rhetorical question". 

PS
I am not sure if I have done this entry correctly because the result seems to show that the original meaning is crossed-referenced in some way. Apologies if I have made the wrong approach on this entry.

@@ -12,1 +12,1 @@
-<gloss>used to create a rhetorical question indicating that the speaker actually believes the opposite is true</gloss>
+<gloss>used to create a rhetorical question indicating that the speaker actually believes the answer is so obvious that a response is not necessary. It is used both where the speaker is asserting something or opposing something.</gloss>

Entry created