Talk:Procatalepsis

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

2006

I had edited the procatalepsis page for accuracy, because after researching procatalepsis I found that the current example was in fact a very poor example of proacatalepsis, if it is procatalepsis at all. I referred to [1] for a good example for procatalepsis, then thought of an example on my own that I felt was a better example of procatalepsis than the current "pilot boat" example. I was informed that my edit was not entirely neutral, and I reluctantly accept this judgement, even though I did not mean to be biased in any way. I do not feel that my example was biased at all, instead, I believe that since procatelepsis is a rhetorical device that is used to support an argument, a viable argument should be presented as an example. Arguments by nature are biased, and they are meant to be, but my entry was not meant to prove any point. In fact, I do not personally support the argument that I used as an example in my edit, although whether I support it or not is not relevant in the least to the article.

Excuse me for my long-windedness, but the main purpose of this is to ask for a series of good examples of arguments that show procatalepsis, and that theses examples be edited into the procatalepsis article by more experience Wikipedians than this humble, unregistered IP address. Thanks and good luck. 24.148.165.4 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the current "pilot boat" example at all. I think someone who actually procatalepsis should replace it with something better. Bobbyi 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any problem with using the example given on the prolepsis page? For example, a speaker might say "'Ah', you say, 'but that is impossible!'" Here the speaker is anticipating the objection 'Ah, but that is impossible!' from his audience - and is probably about to refute that objection before it arises. -BlackTerror 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Prolepsis (rhetoric) is a relatively new (October 2013) page which describes "using anticipation and prediction to strengthen one's argument". According to Figure of speech, prolepsis is "Another word for procatalepsis." These sound to me like two articles covering the same topic. Cnilep (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I merged the pages. Prolepsis (rhetoric) is now a redirect. See old talk at Talk:Prolepsis (rhetoric). Cnilep (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to straw man fallacy

The strawman fallacy is closely related to procatalepsis where the objection presented is weak or distorted. It should at least be linked (with a return from the straw man article). But I'm not sure how or where to insert it. 2A02:1811:D32:1800:BD7A:BB92:122F:D7A9 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]