Talk:Duane Gish

message: Flatly calling someone's position an error is inherently a violation of NPOV. Wikipedia is supposed to describe debates, not enter into them. GusChiggins21 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair point that "error" doesn't cover the possibility that it's a blatant lie, so I've changed the wording to "incorrect statements", in full accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV/FAQ. .. dave souza, talk 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still entering the debate. Policy is clear that we aren't supposed to take sides in a debate, and calling someone's position incorrect violates this. GusChiggins21 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't calling them incorrect, the sources are doing so.  My question to you is, away from this current problem, what would you call a position that someone constantly pushes, over and over, that has been proven to be untrue?  Baegis (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The talk origins one used (11) actually makes various use of the word false.  "Gish preached falsehoods", "promulgated falsehoods", and other uses.  We could use that term and still be completely within bounds.  I think incorrect is much more neutral.  Baegis (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we write that the theory of evolution caused Hitler and teen pregnancy? Because I'm sure we could find sources that say that. Writing what a partisan source says as a fact in an encyclopedia article is entering the debate, and it violates NPOV. It's black and white, you simply can't do it. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No - of course not.  I have problems with this area of the article, though for quite different reasons than you.  I think this section gets lost in examples, whereas the real story is given by scientists and other critics who have engaged in dialog with Gish and witnessed the dynamic, as he tunes out or "changes his story" when encountering any evidence which pops his pre-set thesis.  The criticism isn't that he's wrong, the noteworthy criticism (what makes what he does not science, according to scientists) is that he's not willing to accept scientific evidence that doesn't confirm his conclusion.  Critics say this out-right-it would be better to use that as cites, I think.  I don't agree that the tete-a-tete about who-said-what about Monoclonius and Protoceratops is contributing much to the point, at least not in the section as its presently worded.  Professor marginalia (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talkorigins is not a partisan source.  Gus, you have already tried the community's patience and received a one week and then a two week block.  Why do you want to keep doing these things?  Baegis (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Baegis, your dishonesty and double standards on this is embarrassing for you. I am no Duane Gish fan, but your approach on this matter is very discouraging.  You are a let down for the standards on this site. MephiME  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.142 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a debate with Gish, for Pete's sake. Of course it's partisan. I can't even believe you're arguing that it isn't. GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the "criticisms" section we're speaking of, right?  Critics aren't required to be "nonpartisan".  Professor marginalia (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this source in no way fits the definition of "reliable sources" per policy. It's biased, not peer reviewed, it's a debate for crying out loud. So, it shouldn't be used as a source, and the statement it supports should be changed. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I think it would be more on point to say something like "people that debate Gish say that he ignores evidence that contradicts his position". But we can't just declare "Gish ignores evidence that contradicts his position". GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question doesn't say that, and shouldn't.  The gobble-de-gook with examples is getting us bogged down about whether or not "triceratops has no precursors" is "an error", "a lie" or what have you, and getting off point--which is, of course, Gish, not triceratops. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point; there is no right answer, and wikipedia shouldn't be deciding, or attempting to decide if someone's view is in error. And we sure as shit shouldn't be doing it based on an article originally titled "lying for Jesus". That's the whole reason we have NPOV. GusChiggins21 (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary: there IS a right answer.  "Triceratops did have precursors" is the right answer.  It meets all the necessary criteria for a "right answer": it is a general prediction of an extremely well-supported scientific principle (how could Triceratops NOT have precursors?), and is specifically supported by the fossil record, and we have a reliable source that says so.  The contrary claim is a creationist lie/falsehood/error/whatever.  When a creationist claims that a specific transitional fossil does not exist, but fossils with all the necessary charactristics DO in fact exist: the creationist is clearly and demonstrably wrong. --Robert Stevens (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could argue that the theory of evolution is overwhemingly supported by evidence, and scientists. But when you argue that one explanation of a past event is demonstrably correct, you are getting outside of the realm of the scientific method. Whether a certain extinct species was preceded by another one is an evidentiary question, and thus cannot be subject to the scientific method. You cannot re-create the conditions and do an experiment, and thus it becomes a question of history, in which competing claims are decided based on the merits of their evidence. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Alright, I'll take it down, and we'll put another one up in a few days. GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Errors" 

message: We're arguing too much about theories, and while that's important for improving the whole ID project, I'd like to talk about the wording of the article. I have several proposals. 1. Could we change the criticism section to cite the "incorrect" statement to a specific source? 2. Or, could we present Gish's arguments from the debate, and then present the criticisms of those arguments? Right now we only present the criticisms without presenting the arguments that drew the criticisms. 3. Could we just remove the word "incorrect", because its only source is a debate? GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as a whole can be improved – at present it's rather vague, and under represents majority scientific opinion about Gish's claims and debating techniques. Setting out Gish's arguments and the detailed responses could have value, though of course we have to be concise and can't examine every possible argument in detail. There are several sources pointing to errors of fact, or deliberate misrepresentation, in Gish's presentations and writings. The former are, of course, debates, which seems to be his preferred mode presentation, and more needs to be said about the staging of these debates. By the way, Gish is YEC and not ID, though of course sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. .. dave souza, talk 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the section works because it fails to convey very well the true nature of the disputes against this very controversial figure.  The examples don't do the job because a reader with no familiarity with fossil evidence won't "get it".  One of the most notable criticisms scientists have with Gish is that he delivered streams of totally claptrap claims to great effect.  These presentations were almost always "canned", supported by the complete catalog of logical fallacies, before large audiences that don't have the rudimentary understanding of evolution to recognize what he's done.  What scientists have faced in challenging Gish's examples is that they first have to lay out the basics so the audience can follow the discussion.  What is the fossil record?  What can it tell us?  What is a "transitional form"?  What forms have we found?  What do they look like?  How were they dated?  How are they assigned on the phylogenetic tree?  How come there are gaps?  In what's been nicknamed the "Gish Gallop", Gish is described as unleashing not one or two false claims in a single presentation, but scores of them, and each one not only requiring a direct answer in terms of the fossils which have been found, but a virtual "re-education" effort to undue all the false logic and false tests each claim is packaged with.  What this section does is to grievously oversimplify the dispute, reducing Gish's claims to the level of a difference of opinion about certain fossils, which is how Gish would like the dispute framed but is not how his challengers saw it at all.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By 'criticisms' section, do you mean Disputed claims?  If so, every single statement cited below that section title has a footnote attached to it.  We could repeat every single footnote after the word incorrect, but I don't see it as necessary.  And every line presents what Gish says, then why it is not supported by the scientific consensus.  Bullshit! lacks an in-line citation, but the source is there (and if needed, there is a citation template for TV shows).  Also, the Debates section talks about the 'Gish Gallop', sourced only to Eugenie Scott as those were the only reliable sources I could track down (assuming it was me, I seem to remember doing so but can't say for sure).  The word 'incorrect' is accurate - he happened to make the statements in a debate, but the claims are sourced, as is Gish's rebuttal, and the rebuttal of the rebuttal.  He made the claims and there is a source saying they are wrong.  Also, the thermodynamics believe is sourced to Gish's own writings.  Where he made the statements is not really important - he made them and there's a source.  WLU (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Back on point

message: These need to be added http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims. 

message: Erroneuz1 seems desperate to prove that Shermer was an atheist, in an apparent attempt to justify Gish's ad hominem attacks on him. However:
#"Whether or not Shermer was an atheist at the time is unknown" is pure WP:OR; and
#What he said about his beliefs three years later is hardly relevant -- particularly when he expresses considerable discomfort at the "atheist" label even then.
This is simply a piece of dishonest WP:COATRACKing, in an illegitimate attempt to besmirch Shermer's reputation. HrafnTalkStalk 05:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It should not be included with a WP:RS. We66er (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree. He stated he was an atheist, that justifies Gish's argument. That entire paragraph can be perceived as Gish's argument was meaningless, when in fact, given the evidence that Shermer stated he was an atheist, is not. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: THREE YEARS LATER! So you have no evidence as to whether he was telling the truth in the Gish debate or not. And your "Whether or not Shermer was an atheist at the time is unknown" remains pure WP:OR, not sourced to any WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk 10:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If your contention is that there is no evidence that Shermer was an atheist or not, this should still be included in that paragraph. Otherwise the paragraph just reads like it's besmirching Gish. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My contention is that we have no information as to whether Shermer considered himself an atheist at the time of the debate. Given how grudging his acceptance was of the label three years later, it is entirely conceivable that he did not consider himself to be one at that earlier time. Regardless of whether Shermer was an "atheist" at the time, Gish's strategy is clearly one of ad hominem attack and his equation of atheism with immorality is simply ignorant bigotry. HrafnTalkStalk 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims like these written up in these controversial articles push editors into conflicts when they fail to simply describe and attribute claims and instead are used to present an argument with them.  Michael Shermer has been a non-believer since he was in grad school.  In the strict definition of the term "atheist", since he did not deny there was a God or deny the possibility there was a God, he did not consider himself an atheist.  To many religious figures who devote months and years of their energies into doctrinal categorizing and theological hair-splitting, emphasizing some difference between "nonbeliever" and "God denier" would be interpreted as a deliberate deception.  Shermer appears in later writings to be addressing atheists who feel that way also.  So what?  The issue is moot.  All this article should do is describe in the debate what Shermer said or did, what Gish said or did, and what reliable sources might have said about what Shermer said or did and what Gish said or did.  Editors cannot referee what these subjects say or do.  The same goes for similarly ambiguous labels such as "creationist", which has been the source of hundreds of squabbles like this.  Whether or not a belief or believer can justifiably be labeled a "creationist" is not for WP editors to argue over. So editors may not assemble evidence to show Shermer was or was not really an atheist.  In this instance, they can only assemble claims from sources writing about the role the claims or denials of Shermers atheism figured in the Gish/Shermer debates. End of subject. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So using Shermer's book as the only source for this debate is in no way biased? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is not NPOV and needs reworking.  It's also not as informational as it should be.  But the section does not need to delve into whether or not Shermer was really an atheist.  Most every detail in the debates section is merely an opinion held by his critics, and as such is a disjointed listing of his opponents' peeves.  Most sources I've seen would describe Gish as one of the most influential creationists, and though his "style" wasn't academic and his claims against the scientific evidence weren't accurate, nonetheless, he was so effective against opponents with the gathered public that there was a loose boycott of sorts launched to cease debating against him.  His tactics certainly infuriated the scientific community but he was by most accounts quite a crowd pleaser. So what was Shermer really doing?  He was trying to pull Gish away from his script and actively debate, to get him off the canned speech.  But it didn't work; Gish delivered his script as planned.  The Debates section now somewhat gives the impression that Gish bumbled in the debates.  But that's not so.  The audience was often filled with pro-Gish parishioners coming to rally for the cause, at least this was noted in some sources.  But even most of his critics noted the pro-science debaters made little headway with the crowd due to Gish's showmanship. It's important to describe the elements that irked the pro-evolution side, but now there's nothing describing the effectiveness with the public Gish had in these debates. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. You effectively see what I was getting at, thank you. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneuz1's [[WP:COATRACK]] 

message: Maybe this is just my ignorance of how Wikipedia works, but I have some questions about the repeated citing of a source only known as "Numbers 2006, p.XXX."  This document is cited 5 times in the article.  I am totally unable to track this source down or determine anything about it.  Since the whole point of citing your sources is to show readers where your information/point comes from, it seems that these citations are a total failure in that respect.  If anyone knows anything about these sources or where to find them, I would greatly appreciate either editing the entry or just replying here, if the citation format is, in fact correct.  In general, I always want to improve Wikipedia, but in this case I'm also very curious about this topic and would like to learn more.  76.120.122.220 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like it's the item listed in the References section, a source from 2006 with someone named "Numbers" as author. Wiki citation format doesn't seem to have a standard way to footnote different specific pages from the same larger work:( DMacks (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the references so they directly link to the book in question.  If you click on the footnote you will be taken to the full citation. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a cool feature! DMacks (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in article 

message: I'd like to dispute the overall tone of the Debates Section.  In reading it, it seems that the portrayal of Gish's style is the predominant focus and it is in a negative light.  I know this a user-driven site, and Gish is an extremely polarizing figure, but shouldn't the description be more neutral in approach?  I focus on Debates here, but in the article and above comments, several mentions of figures that oppose Gish are made that are just as polarizing (Pietropaoli, for example, uses a low-science, high-trash talk style in "Denying Evolution").  I think that comments/discussions, not to mention hundreds of independent web sites, are the place for the debate, not an 'encyclopedia' article.
(talk) 01:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Sydney Morning Herald, and given I couldn't confirm the quotes supposedly from them, with them I removed the section. Further I removed the reference as it wasn't NPOV.Donhoraldo (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is cited to The Creationists. Kindly do not remove material that has been cited to a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: (ec)A ref is just a ref, you can only debate whether it's reliable (WP:NPOV means "use the sources", not "don't take their positions" or "be 50/50 balanced"). I restored it, since other cites in the article also point to it. I'm also confused...when you say you couldn't confirm the statement, do you mean you looked at the given page and the material there didn't confirm, or you didn't actually read that page? DMacks (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant that he couldn't verify it directly from the SMH website and/or Google News -- but then newspapers often tend to be a little haphazard with their back-issue archives. It is confirmed to a cast-iron-solid WP:SECONDARY source, which I have open at the relevant page even as I type this. Turning to the detailed footnoting, it appeared in the SMH on June 25 1988. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, now I see what he's saying. Thanks for re-confirming from your ref. DMacks (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll concede The CreationistsDonhoraldo (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the section appears unbalanced - all negative, almost as if the authors have an agenda - and, at the very least, mistitled. The subject is not "Debates" (which would presumably talk about the important debates he has participated in), but "Criticism of Gish's debating style". --Bermicourt (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Evo/Creo debates are never "important", in that they're simply rhetorical events, serving an entertainment and tribal purpose, not any serious, scientific one. Trying to 'win' in a debate an argument that has been lost in scientific discourse for the last couple of centuries is unlikely to do much for your credibility, which is likely to be reflected in the WP:RSs covering the events. If you can find RSs prominent reflecting otherwise, you're welcome to introduce them. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Debates Section

message: I would point out that it requires more than for somebody to have written a forward for somebody else's book, or for them to hold the same general ideology (two ludicrously permissive standards), for them to be sufficiently relevant to be listed in the 'See also' section. I'm sure Gish has written forwards for hundreds of obscure books, and I know that there are millions of YECs. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  See-also 

message: Is it just me or has the photo of Gish been taken or distorted to make him look grotesque or ridiculous? Some of Gish's views appear ridiculous in that they contradict mainstream science but surely we should use a more neutral photo, or is this actually what the man looks like? Booshank (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sourced to creationwiki.org, so no it isn't an Evil Evolutionist Conspiracy™. As far as I can make out, none of his recent photos are particularly flattering. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I have no truck with Gish's views, in fact I hadn't heard of the man until I came across the term "Gish gallop" used to describe a debating style in which the speaker throws up a large number of confusing or irrelevant points in an effort to overwhelm his opponent. Booshank (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Like Booshank, I too was familiar with the phrase "Gish gallop," but I had no idea it was connected to this guy (or that it was originally used specifically to refer to creationists.) I added a sentence in the article to convey that it is now used outside of the creationist context (and, yes, I was extremely tempted to write something along the lines of "The phrase "Gish gallop" has evolved to mean...") That being said, I really struggled with writing a sentence explaining how it's now used, and the references I used aren't great. If anyone wants to improve on what I wrote or the references, please do so! (We could delete it altogether, but I think that would be doing our readers a disservice -- if you came accross the phrase "Gish gallop" and didn't know what it meant, wouldn't Wikipedia be one of the first places you would check??)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 13:38, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
: I agree, the term "Gish gallop" is increasingly used in media these days, for example this article   and this one  and this one dating back to 2012 . At the moment, a link to "Gish gallop" just redirects to this article, which is a disservice to our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gish gallop 

message: Answers in Genesis is not the epitome of reliable sourcing for most things, but they're not people who would make up something like this - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duane Gish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220081144/http://blog.anarchic-teapot.net/2012/02/18/homeopathy-recedit-ad-anum/ to http://blog.anarchic-teapot.net/2012/02/18/homeopathy-recedit-ad-anum/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified