35:
98:
292:
An immature and transparent debate technique is to pick a trivial quibble out of a substantive post, and reply with an objection about that irrelevancy while evading everything of substance. The original poster may well be justified in repeating a question or asking you to address the real issue if
288:
On the other side: if there's legitimately a lot of material to cover, remember that paragraph breaks exist for a reason, and so do separate threads with their own headings. No one wants to read a monolithic, 500-word block of text. And a list of a dozen issues that aren't closely related won't
296:
But even if you find yourself feeling the need to repeat yourself because someone is not addressing the points you made, even if justified in repeating yourself, it may be best to back off the discussion. Unlike some forums, there is no advantage to
170:
Occasionally, one finds editors who dominate a talk or process page in this manner. When one person in a well-discussed topic has provided a quarter or more of the posts (often comprising half the total verbiage), this may indicate a problem with
273:
can sometimes be useful, though assertions lose power each time they are repeated. Some editors may use this tactic effectively, but should avoid relying on it habitually or to excess, which may be taken as dismissiveness.
207:– arguing incessantly (whether with redundant statements or new but irrelevant digressions to fuel the conflict) until everyone else walks away in disgust. This often implicates the policies that
368:
305:
In short, if you cannot handle a discussion with reason, respect for other editors, and a mind for resolution, then exit quietly or don't get into it in the first place.
277:
Someone using more words than you would have isn't an excuse to declare "too long; didn't read" when you really just can't muster a solid response. If you
227:
333:
191:
373:
234:
make it difficult to post responses people actually bothered to write, and even one massive post making 20 points when 5 would do hinders
50:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
51:
328:
282:
190:
editor may feel their points are not addressed, but it may be only because other editors do not wish to deal with the repetition.
183:
186:" (TLDR) issue. While that is not the same as proof by repetition, it has the same basic outcome – wearing down other editors. A
242:
In each case, the advice remains: "proof by repetition" is invalid, and repeating the same arguments does not help to achieve a
308:
212:
208:
338:
230:
an argument by posting point after point so that no one can keep up. This is especially disruptive on
Knowledge; repeated
176:
235:
150:
139:
363:
216:
231:
125:
The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion is least likely to be correct.
134:
is the practice of repeating an argument or proposition until challenges to it "dry up", thus creating a
157:'s usage. In each case, the act of repetition has nothing to do with the real strength of an argument.
323:
243:
55:
251:
131:
65:
348:
43:
17:
135:
357:
298:
270:
163:
154:
143:
58:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
117:
223:
343:
201:
107:
281:
don't have time to read and reply to something, then you don't have time to
110:
rather than valid discussion to wear down all those who disagree with you.
187:
92:
29:
194:
to answer every argument, and are likely to ignore rehash.
80:
73:
149:
Other terms for it are "proof by repetition", and "
369:Knowledge essays introducing or defining new terms
258:When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
255:
146:" – persevering in repeating the same premise.
122:
167:should be avoided on Knowledge's talk pages.
8:
309:not a chat forum of debate for its own sake
199:
285:, either. They add nothing constructive.
269:The assertiveness technique known as the
197:A related fallacious technique is called
222:An especially annoying variant is the
7:
56:thoroughly vetted by the community
52:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
175:. It is frequently a symptom of
96:
33:
209:Knowledge is not a battleground
142:effect. This is also called "
1:
334:WP:Don't bludgeon the process
289:produce a useful discussion.
226:, in which someone tries to
182:The problem is akin to the "
18:Knowledge:Collect's Law
374:Knowledge behavioral essays
293:you are obviously dodging.
283:post snarky "TLDR" comments
390:
63:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge
192:Editors are not obligated
329:WP:Too long; didn't read
104:This page in a nutshell:
140:filibuster or stonewall
261:
200:
128:
339:WP:Don't be a fanatic
299:getting the last word
184:too long; didn't read
54:, as it has not been
120:'s law of repetition
252:First law of holes
132:Proof by assertion
349:List of fallacies
114:
113:
91:
90:
16:(Redirected from
381:
364:Knowledge essays
217:"drop the stick"
205:
100:
99:
93:
83:
76:
37:
36:
30:
21:
389:
388:
384:
383:
382:
380:
379:
378:
354:
353:
320:
271:"broken record"
267:
262:
254:
215:; see also the
177:tendentiousness
151:Bellman's proof
136:logical fallacy
129:
121:
97:
87:
86:
79:
72:
68:
60:
59:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
387:
385:
377:
376:
371:
366:
356:
355:
352:
351:
346:
341:
336:
331:
326:
319:
316:
314:
306:
301:on Knowledge.
280:
266:
263:
250:
249:
247:
232:edit conflicts
162:repetition in
138:, and often a
116:
115:
112:
111:
101:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
69:
64:
61:
49:
48:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
386:
375:
372:
370:
367:
365:
362:
361:
359:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
321:
317:
315:
312:
310:
307:Knowledge is
304:
302:
300:
294:
290:
286:
284:
278:
275:
272:
264:
260:
259:
253:
248:
245:
241:
239:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
218:
214:
210:
206:
204:
203:
195:
193:
189:
185:
180:
178:
174:
173:perseveration
168:
166:
165:
164:argumentation
158:
156:
155:Lewis Carroll
152:
147:
145:
144:perseveration
141:
137:
133:
127:
126:
119:
109:
105:
102:
95:
94:
82:
78:
75:
74:WP:REPETITION
71:
70:
67:
62:
57:
53:
47:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
324:WP:Consensus
313:
303:
295:
291:
287:
276:
268:
257:
256:
240:
221:
198:
196:
181:
172:
169:
161:
159:
148:
130:
124:
123:
103:
41:
224:Gish gallop
219:principle.
42:This is an
358:Categories
344:Filibuster
236:resolution
202:ad nauseam
106:Don't use
81:WP:BREVITY
244:consensus
213:a soapbox
153:", after
108:iteration
66:Shortcuts
318:See also
265:Caveats
118:Collect
279:really
188:prolix
228:"win"
160:Such
44:essay
211:nor
360::
311:.
238:.
179:.
246:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.