This article is within the scope of WikiProject Debating, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DebatingWikipedia:WikiProject DebatingTemplate:WikiProject DebatingDebating articles
This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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)[reply]
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 Talk13:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does that satisfy? 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)[reply]
