Talk:Delay, Deny, Defend

Notability

This topic doesn't seem to fit WP:NBOOK. I don't see it fitting WP:GNG or WP:BOOKCRIT. It could deserve a reference on the Assassination of Brian Thompson page but that doesn't make the book itself notable. guninvalid (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid It actually is notable. NBOOK requires two reviews. NY Review of books is one already in the article, I'm uncertain if that is reliable. Used on a bunch of pages and looks ok but seems a bit off. Searching on ProQuest there are several more reviews from RS which I have added to further reading :) Probably a few more not on ProQuest. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the practice of delay, deny, defend warrants an article? I think the shooter was referring to it, not the book. I just created a draft at Delay, Deny, Defend (practice). Thriley (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thriley It also seems notable to me, but I think it might be a bit harder to write an article on, as a term/practice. More ephemeral articles like that are harder to make than books, IMO. Probably technically notable. I agree it was probably about the practice (though it's interesting that outlets connected it to the book) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ye the notability is there, there were actually quite a few reviews of the book for instance when it released, in the rather prominent review publications too like the NY review of books. I do agree tho that the shooter was probably referring to the practice instead so its kinda funny and cringe that as a result of that shooting both this article about the book and now about the author have appeared (the latter of whom is a distinguished professor emeritus from Rutgers so likely notable himself as well) 5.44.170.181 (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the notability of this book is questionable at best. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Historical note

The fundamental idea related to the tactics of "delay, deny, defend" is an old one, and has been discussed in the literature for many decades. IIRC, it was first popularized in the early 1990s during the run-up to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, with experts noting that the tobacco industry used this tactic throughout the 20th century to prevent regulation. In the mid to late 1990s, Greenpeace and other environmental organizations began to notice that these tactics, made famous by the tobacco industry, were in fact used by fossil fuel companies and climate deniers. It wasn't until the early to mid 2000s that Naomi Oreskes, historian of science, put all the pieces together and published Merchants of Doubt (2010), linking the tactics of the tobacco companies with the fossil fuel companies, showing how the tactics of "delay, deny, defend" were all part of the same effort to undermine corporate regulation in the US. By 2016, journalist Jane Mayer built upon this foundation and showed how there was an even larger movement at work, an umbrella organization if you will, that made the tactics of "delay, deny, defend" their bread and butter, with Mayer (and other subsequent authors) drawing direct lines and showing a network coordinating these tactics using charitable organizations to fund their efforts. Mayer's Dark Money (2016) tied up a lot of the loose ends that Oreskes didn't address, but AFAIK, didn't address the healthcare industry per se, but did cover the reaction to Obamacare (ACA) by the same special interests. One of the interesting things related to all of this, is that UnitedHealth Group funded both Democrats and Republicans, playing both sides of the aisle to prevent regulation and attempts to move the country towards healthcare reform. This is notable because when polling questions are formulated in a neutral manner, the majority of Americans support universal healthcare, unlike the majority of US politicians, many of whom are receiving money from large donors in the private health insurance industry. This conflict of interest is in large part why the US does not have a comprehensive climate change remediation program and why it lacks universal healthcare unlike every other developed country in the world, a disconnect largely made possible by the tactics of delay, deny, and defend. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I recently created Draft:Delay, Deny, Defend (practice). Please feel free to add this to the draft. Thriley (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s definitely the primary subject. I’ll move the book article to Delay, Deny, Defend (book) once the draft is put into mainspace. Thriley (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, before I forget, Dan Fagin, the author of Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation (2013) documents these tactics in his book about the epidemiological investigation of a cancer cluster due to industrial pollution that the government and the medical industrial complex responded to with denial at every level. It's really disturbing, and left me depressed for months at a time. My larger point here is that many writers have been talking about this for years. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I would heavily disagree that it's "Definitely the primary subject", because it doesn't realistically seem like there's enough information on it to construct a reasonably comprehensive article. If anything, I think anything that would go in Draft:Delay, Deny, Defend ought to go into a 'Background' section in this current article at this point and time, then branch if it ends up becoming too overwhelming. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If this has been discussed for 30 years and there are reliable sources backing it, I would expect it to be the primary subject. Thriley (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)