Talk:Moving the goalposts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Psychology C‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move page

This article needs to be moved to "moving the goalposts" as that is the expression, not "move the goalpost". (See online and paper dictionaries.) — Paul G (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Done boldly. HiLo48 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd names

Uh, "Sybil Antwhisper"? I recognize that we'll eventually be a multi-planet civilization, but we haven't gotten there yet.

destabilisation/setting up to fail technique

It is also a destabilisation/setting up to fail technique where for example workplace instructions keep changing, maybe in a contradictory way, often even without being informed. --Penbat (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite support questioned

A good sentence was removed because the cited source does not support it:

"This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion." → not verified by Jef Clark et al. (2005). Humbug! The Skeptic’s Field Guide to Spotting Fallacies in Thinking, p. 92?

With better cite support, it could be restored. --Ansei (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first attested use..?

Seems unlikely the first attested use is as recent as 1987. This one is from 1984... http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dZUEAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wjADAAAAIBAJ&dq=moving%20the%20goalposts&pg=2294%2C1285167 - Format (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist investigation

It should not be confused with checklist investigative where a number of questions need to be answered and substantiated first, before drawing a conclusion. --105.0.5.157 (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]