Talk:Gish gallop

Is this article biased?

Kanbei85 blocked from editing for not being here to build an encyclopedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is biased. The very title, coined by a biased partisan with an agenda to disparage an opponent, is an affront. This is a jargon phrase used by a particular online community of anti-theists and is not in general common use. Motioning for deletion. --Kanbei85 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC) And what would you call overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, with regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments? Such a technique might necessarily come into play when dealing with an audience thoroughly convinced by a charismatic but dishonest leader. If a mountain of perfectly legitimate evidence exists against your opponent's position, it would be unfortunate if presenting it was characterized and summarily dismissed as a "Gish gallop." 76.233.3.75 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC) This comment, and article, amounts to character assassination against the deceased Dr. Duane Gish.--Kanbei85 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC) I look forward to any policy-based arguments for deletion you may be able to present. Hunc (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC) That has already been done. This is not noteworthy (WP:N) because it represents a phrase in use only by a relatively-small special interest community. It is being presented falsely as if it were in common, generally-accepted use. Furthermore it is a biased disparagment of Dr. Gish and fails to meet neutrality and objectivity standards. It is only Scott's opinion that Gish employed this dishonest technique, yet the article states it as an objective fact that Gish did in fact do this.--Kanbei85 (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Reality-based arguments would help too. This is a good encyclopedic article. I appreciate that you don't like it. Hunc (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Wow! In what world are you actually engaging with anything I've said? I appreciate that you like this article and agree with its bias, but that does not mean it should be on Wikipedia.--Kanbei85 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC) You chose to go the way of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which assumes there is no opposition. I removed the tag, which is the usual way to oppose such a process. Now you will have to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion instead. "Gish gallop" is a very useful concept. A Gish gallop can be used by anyone who defends an idea that has no leg to stand on. Creationism is just one example, and Gish is just one user of the method. The number of links to the article Special:WhatLinksHere/Gish_gallop shows how useful it is, and there is also a number of reliable sources using it. It is not Wikipedia's fault that Gish chose to be famous for an invalid discussion technique: the term exists, and is used extensively, so Wikipedia should explain what it is and give those reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Gish never chose to have Eugenie Scott create a defamatory slang term, now did he? At the very least, this article needs to be revised for objectivity, since it says outright that Gish did argue in a dishonest fashion, rather than saying that Scott, and/or other people who had an axe to grind against Gish, claimed he did. There is another term, Elephant Hurling, which seems to cover the same concept. Is there a page for it here? I don't see one!--Kanbei85 (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Probably because the term, apparently coined by a creationist judging from the reference on that page, hasn't become widely used enough to meet notability? --tronvillain (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) As others have mentioned here and at the deletion discussion, the term Gish gallop is quite well-known, even outside of evolution debates. Elephant hurling, on the other hand, looks like it was made up specifically so creationists could have their own term to throw about, given that I can't find any non-creationist sources that discuss it in depth and even then there's little to suggest that it meets WP:GNG, unlike this article. clpo13(talk) 18:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment- Violation of NPOV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as a malformed RfC with no prejudice against refiling a properly formed RfC in the future --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The language which states as an objective fact that Gish used dishonest debating tactics is a violation of NPOV, taking sides in a debate and making a subjective statement as if it were objective fact.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note Please read WP:RFC and pose a neutrally worded question or proposal. As it stands this is just a POV claim with an RfC tag and, properly, should be closed as malformed. Jbh ^Talk 13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to change "used" to ", according to Scott, used" or "Scott said used". Neutral reporting of facts, not taking sides.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You might simply like to try for a consensus on this page for your change, rather than going for a more formal RfC. Personally I suggest that the reference is quite enough to tell the reader who generated the phrase. Hunc (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a misdirection, Hunc. The problem was never that the article was not clear about who generated the phrase. The problem is that the article takes sides in the debate and states as an objective fact that Gish did in fact do that. It is only an opinion, not a fact, that Gish did that, and the article's wording should accordingly not take sides.--Kanbei85 (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:1AM gives you good advice on what to do next. I suggest that you read it and follow the advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Also: Bullshit

I noticed that the See Also section contained a link to Bullshit § Bullshit asymmetry principle, which has since been removed.

For this reason, I decided to modify this link. I was undecided on removal of either the entire link, or just the section link part, so I decided on the more humourous option.

Considering the righteous indignation on this talk page, the idea of having a 'See Also: Bullshit' section on the page (as compared to the more helpful section link) is immensely funny to me.

Feel free to delete this link in future

Cdpas (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this term in common use or a "internet rationalist community" localism?

The lead treats the term as common or standard but is it recognized outside the rationalist, atheist and anti-creationist (or similar) communities on the Internet? The lead sources its claims to talk.origins debates and a book by a participant in those debates. What's needed are citations to "Gish gallop" being used without explanation in newspapers or other places where most readers would have no idea who is Gish. Otherwise the lead should be changed to indicate that this is a localized usage. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

[1] uses it in the scope of (anti-)animal research. [2] is lots of scopes and discussion as a general debate technique. [3] uses it in politics (not related to religion or creationism). DMacks (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Those are explanations of an obscure phrase to audiences presumed not to know it, not cases of a recognized phrase "being used without explanation ... where most readers have no idea who is Gish". These sources show that there are writers who follow the rationalist sphere and advocate broader use of this term, but not that the broader use has actually happened. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread as just wanting use in distant topics. As for mere use of the term without substantial explanation in other fields (taking for granted that at least a portion of the readers will know what the phrase means), how about:

• "Through self-citation and repeat-ing the same arguments over and over, a gish gallop[11] is created (Earp,2016). So far, this strategy appears to have succeeded and has resulted in a ballooning body of self-referenced material that is in my view often as misleading as is the present critique." (doi:10.1080/17441692.2016.1272939, a letter in Global Public Health). The topic is far from creationism; footnote 11 does define the phrase, but it's clearly used as if it is at least somewhat known.
• "Unfortunately, this book was a gish-gallop of straw-men and well-dressed suggestions." (doi:10.1558/jsrnc.39043, a book review in Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture) There is no further explanation of the meaning, merely examples and summaries of some things that seem to meet the definition.

DMacks (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The second source uses it without explanation, but (being in an academic journal) not for a general audience and possibly (also because an academic journal) assuming that the typical reader can and will look up unfamiliar terms. Whereas a newspaper or popular magazine would be less likely to do that.

I put "gish gallop" into a search engine and the first 100 results all had explanations of the term, plus a few links to a domain called gishgallop.com. I stopped at 100, I don't know how far it actually goes before one finds a use of the term without explanation. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. It might well not be a common term in lay circles. DMacks (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not common enough to be understood without explanation in any clerical circles either, except (maybe) the original creationism-atheism-rationalist milieu. Google Scholar finds 81 pages, mostly of that variety and all but a handful explaining the term. SSRN doesn't have a single use of the term in half a million articles, but it does have alternate terms like "scattershot" used synonymously with what is here called "gish gallop". There really isn't indication of academic usage as an understood term; your reference above looks more like the freedom of writers in humanities and social science journals to use terms their audience is likely to find obscure, on the theory they can look it up. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, from searching for use of gish gallop and comparable terms, it looks like creationists have taken up scattershot as a counterpunch, to make the same accusation against their opponents while detaching the concept from Gish's name. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please tell us what exactly is your goal regarding the article? Do you want the article to say that it is specific to "rationalist, atheist and anti-creationist (or similar) communities on the Internet"? If so, you will need a source for that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The article as it is pushes a nonstandard term as though it is "the" term for a particular rhetorical technique. This is a question of usage (statistical frequency in particular contexts), not existence (has it ever been used). For the latter, the current sourcing suffices. For the former, that the overwhelming majority of sources using the term explain it, and that there seems to be no place other than e.g. Lesswrong, Slate Star Codex and similar (rationalist) communities where it is used without comment, seems like a critical fact about the term that would be misleading to not state. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I edited the lead to be, IMO, more balanced but there is no mention as yet of where and whether the term is in regular use. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles on other eponyms like Godwin's Law and santorum do provide some evidence about the extent of usage. Bulverism does not, but maybe it should. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether an aspect is covered in articles always depends on whether we have reliable sources for it. Godwin and Santorum have sources on that aspect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Because this term is pronounced in a way that isn't clear to English speakers who are unfamiliar, I think someone should add a pronunciation key to the beginning of the article. I don't know how to do this properly on Wikipedia, especially not on my mobile device, which is all I have access to right now. Specifically, the fact that Gish is pronounced with a hard G even though it's followed by an I. RobotGoggles (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Mock versus refute

I recently changed the verb 'mock' to 'refute' in the sentence 'Another technique is to single out their weakest claim or argument, then highlight and mock it'. This change has been undone by a moderator on the grounds that it is not constructive. I believe this assessment to be misguided. The verb 'mock' has no place in discussions of rhetoric. The aim is to corroborate or refute. Mocking or rubbishing a claim or argument is to commit a fallacy (ad lapidem). With that in mind, I would like to ask that the decision be revisited by editors (I am not a regular editor, have no desire to be and am merely trying to correct a glaring error). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.177.213 (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The source says "mock". Wikipedia is supposed to be based on WP:RS, not on editors' ideas.

Otherwise, I would change "weakest" to "strongest" as well as change "mock" to "refute". My response is to point out that I can refute any one of those arguments (with reasoning on the level of creationists, that is easy for someone with a bit of practice), but because of Brandolini's law, I have no time to refute all of them, then demand that the galloper pick the argument they deem their best, then refute that. Of course, they will not pick a best one because they know that all their arguments are weak, so I will have an onlooker choose one and refute that. But there is no source for that method, so it cannot be in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)