Talk:Proof by assertion

I nearly NPOV tagged my own article; I am a little concerned that the example I give is perhaps inappropriate, since there are those who genuinely believe in a Jewish world conspiracy. --Just zis Guy, you know? 10:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth"
There is no source to back up that this quotation was said by Lenin. It is also atributed to Goebbels, so I'll change it to sound as "as the saying goes"--Theocide 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He could say it, but it doesn't give reason for citation. It is probably translation of proverb known and used in many, if not all slavic languages. (Czech: "Stokrát opakovaná lež se stává pravdou")88.101.76.122 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now there is a source, but it is a remarkably poor source. In what book, chapter, page, did Lenin write such sentence? The source gives absolutely no reference, and absolutely no context. A cursory search in marxists.org produces produced no similar quote of Lenin.


 * Or perhaps the point is to prove the sentence is factually correct? If we repeat enough times that Lenin said it, then somehow he will come to have said it? Ninguém (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the bare assertion (how fitting!) "No, it was not incorrectly attributed to Lenin. He was the one who said it." from the article. Please discuss this here, on the discussion page and not in the article; anyways it certainly doesn't belong under "see also". -- 77.7.132.241 (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor adjustment
I redid the end of the article as it seemed (to me anyways) to imply that user of this fallacy intentionally promotes a lie, this is not always true. Let me give an example: Logically a religious person may continually state that Lazzarus rose from the dead after 6 days because the Bible states it even though a logical argument could be constructed against the plausability of this from a medical standpoint. This does not mean the user does not believe his/her statement to be true. Quadzilla99 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

example from iraq
would politic pointless rhetoric count like "we gotta support our troops" or "we are liberating iraq" in view of all current events--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

References?
http://www.mnforsustain.org/student_logical_fallacies_with_references.htm

A long list of references on logic and argumentation located at the above link. Haven't read them, but if anyone else has, I'd suggest listing them as references so the article doesn't get tagged for deletion. I've also listed the link as an external link, as it does provide a pretty good resource for logical fallacies & such. As well as references. Mgmirkin 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this page doesn't mention the fallacy described in the article. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
From my understanding, proof by assertion is the same as the bare assertion fallacy, however this article makes this unclear because it seems to be discussing the consequences of an unanswerable argument rather than the form of the argument itself. —Mrwojo (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We just redirected Bare Assertion Fallacy to Ipse-dixitism, too. I question the validity of this as a fallacy in the same way we did for bare assertion fallacy. I started a new topic on it. GManNickG (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed that it should be merged, especially since the title is obviously the same as Ipse dixit, but the content is much closer to proof by repetition aka Ad nauseum (which links to it because of this), for some reason. Foxyshadis (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge with ipse-dixitism
As Mrwojo points out above, this article is extremely close to the bare assertion fallacy. Moreso, bare assertion fallacy just recently was changed to redirect to ipse-dixitism, because it had no actual authoritative sources to define the fallacy.

And I find the same problem with this one. It has no sources (the external link at the bottom doesn't even have this fallacy in it, as far as I can see; I'll be deleting it.), and doesn't add (anything, really) over other existing, established fallacies. I propose it either redirect to ipse-dixitsm, or merged with it.

For now, I'm smacking an "Unreferenced" template on the page. If the discussion doesn't kick up, I'll propose a merge myself. GManNickG (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Ad lapidem is also quite close.  That seems to be "refutation by assertion" but I'm not entirely convinced that the term is used widely as Wikipedia describes it; it's hard to tell because there are so few sources.  The verifiability of many of the fallacy articles is poor.  —Mrwojo (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere there was a court case where the phrase "gratuitous concurrence" was used in relation to (a style of?)questioning a defendant repeatedly until they relent. Not sure if it's used regularly in law,but, just adding that for discussion.The case, I recall ,involved an indigenous Australian maybe in the 1990's. Signed,JohnsonL623 (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Further to this case, in other words ,gratuitous repeated closed questioning to obtain concurrence ( by denial of reply, albeit partial denial i.e. not allowing them to complete sentences maybe?)exploiting the respondant's inability to fully comprehend or articulate an answer in a reasonable time. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels
I thought it was he that said a lie told often enough becomes the truth? That is what I was taught in school. Mugginsx (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We need a reliable source to attribute that quote – a source that points to when or where someone said it. Without that it reads like a self-referential joke. —Mrwojo (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)