Talk:Denialism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ideological denialism Section

Reading this in the section:

Ideologies that conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or facts can drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial, either to favor their personal beliefs, or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with contradictory evidence.

I'm wondering if I shouldn't edit the introduction to read:

Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they hold personal beliefs, engage in private activities or seek to influence policy processes and outcomes illegitimately.

If so, then denialism is synonymous with thought crime, rather than just a related concept. If not, then this section needs work. ô¿ô (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Thought crime. I see nothing Orwellian about criticising fallacious (and often pernicious) nonsense. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with criticism. Especially of the fallacious and pernicious. But what's this, in this section, about how denialisms "drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial"? It drives them? As it sits, this article presents denialism as if it belongs in the DSM-IV. Right along side schizophrenia, personality disorders and sociopathy. Lemme clue you, it doesn't.

A simple search is all that's necessary to determine that denialism, in 99.99% of its 100,000 and some-odd uses, is a polemical term, pure and simple. ô¿ô (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the article states that Denialism is a psychiatric illness, so this is completely off-topic. Nor does any of this support any of the POV edits you have been making. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

Cites opinion pieces as news articles. Makes uncited assertions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Absentee (talk • contribs) 01:08, May 30, 2008

Could you be more specific, please? I've left your "dubious" template in place for now, but removed the "disputed" one until you can provide a more concrete explanation of what's in dispute here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this revision, reference 6 is an editorial, 7, 8, and 9 are opinion columnists, and 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 27, and 28 are blogs. The links to all three Newsweek references (21, 23, 24) are broken, so I have no idea what they say. The external links section is a mess; most of the links are already used as references (el 1, 2, 4, 6) are blogs (#5), or are links to advocacy sites (#3). Horologium (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the external links section, as per my rationale above. After removing the already-linked references, the blogs, and the advocacy site, the only thing left was a parody paper written by a graduate student, which was not enough to justify a section of its own. Wikipedia:EL#References and citation notes that external links used as references should not be included in external links sections, which is why they were removed. WP:EL also notes that blogs should not be used as external links, nor should there be a lack of balance of views; ExxonSecrets (a Greenpeace front) fails to provide a balanced look at anything, and throwing up links to American Enterprise Institute to balance the greenpeace link doesn't improve the article; neither really deals with the concept of denialism as a concept, only as a term to disparage opposing viewpoints. Horologium (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Relativity denial

Are there any references to Relativity denial? Albmont (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Autodynamics? - Eldereft (cont.) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Challanging the lead re "denial is.. reject.. consensus"

I challange the sourcing of the first line of this article's lead,

Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists.

I have never heard of the word being explicitely defined by denial of a scientific consensus previously. If inline citation [1] is supposed to support both of the first two lines, I further challange its relevance as WP:RS given that (1) the publication and author are both apparently not notable enough to have a page on wiki, and (2) it looks like an opinion piece in any case. Jaimaster (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote lead, removed OR

I just did an edit of the lead, largely for clarity and conciseness. A couple of things should be explained. 1) I removed the explicit discussion of the Hoofnagle source, because a blog page is not a strong enough source to justify that. I left the page as a note-reference because it seems useful. 2) It is redundant to say that the term is pejorative -- the material above makes this completely clear.

I also removed the "Conspiracy Theories" section, because there is no source beyond the Hoofnagle blog to justify applying the term "denialism" here, and therefore it constitutes original research. I did not detect anything beyond this that looked like obvious OR, and therefore I boldly removed the OR tag. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange link

The "see also" section contains a link to tax protester but I am not sure what its relevance is. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Christ

It seems that the accusation of denialism originates from the very medieval accusation of denial of Christ, although I can't say anything more about that. In a sense, opponents of evolution are accused of denying science, while defenders of evolution are accused of denying Christ. ADM (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. My memory is rusty, but I do believe denial of Christ refers to those who disagree that Jesus was the Messiah, not basic denialism as discussed in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Any unbiased sources?

I don't have time for in depth reading of all the sources at the moment, but glancing through the list they all look like they are written with a particular kind of "denialism" in mind. They focus on global warming "denialism" and I suspect explain why the "denials" are incorrect or how they can be dealt with. Are there any unbiased articles on a larger topic of "denialism"? Is this really a single topic or is it several topics all using the same word for propaganda purposes? Readin (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, there are plenty of non-Global Warming based sources on the phenomenon of denialism in the article. Could you be more specific as to what you're wanting? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If they don't focus on global warming, they focus on another specific kind of "denialism", with the implication that the "denialism" is bad and must be fought against. The topic of this article is not "denialism of XXXX", it is just "denialism" in general. Are there sources that talk about "denialism" in general? Readin (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine denialism

The hot-blooded and soft-headed denial machine keeping children from getting vaccines is certainly notable and deserves a good deal of weight here. See here, here, and here.

No less than Nature has made the comparison between the vaccine denialists and other crackpot denialist friends of theirs. The Squicks (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Denialism psychoanal

Denialism, does not appear in the OED, but the word carries a negative connotation because of more than one meaning of "denial"

The OED carries several meanings for denial of which these two are relevant:

• 2 The asserting (of anything) to be untrue or untenable; contradiction of a statement or allegation as untrue or invalid; also, the denying of the existence or reality of a thing.
• 3 Refusal to acknowledge a person or thing as having a certain character or certain claims; a disowning, disavowal.

Most of the other meanings do not impinge on the use of denialism but the latest addition to the OED probably does in the minds of the general public:

ADDITIONS SERIES 1997
Add: 7. Psychoanal. The suppression (usu. at an unconscious level) of a painful or unacceptable wish or of experiences of which one is ashamed. Now also in more general use, esp. in phr. in denial (orig. and chiefly U.S.). Cf. RESISTANCE n. 2 b. [Psychoanalysis. Opposition, freq. unconscious, to allowing memories or desires which have been repressed as unacceptable or disruptive to emerge into the conscious mind.]

I think it would be useful if it was made clear in this article that Denialism is dereived from denial (meanings 2 and 3) an not other meanings such as 7. --PBS (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We would need an independent source that asserts this. Otherwise, it's OR. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is why I have put it on the talk page, in the hope someone can find a suitable reference. --PBS (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, You deleted all of the wording I added not just the bit you thought was OR. So I have put it back without that part. But explain why you think the removed comment was OR. Do you know of any general purpose dictionary which includes the word, and what do they cite for its inclusion? -- PBS (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On the "ad hominem" claim, the first two sources don't appear to verify the claim. The second (a list-serve) and third (WP:FRINGE promotion of AIDS denialism) don't appear to be WP:RS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Hrafn you removed "In circumstances where an event or process in dispute, the use of the term may be an ad hominem by those who wish to assert that their point of view is the scholarly consensus." with this comment in the history of the article (Rvt: first two sources fail to verify the claim, second and third do not appear to be WP:RS)

I provided three sources:

• David O. Brink, Handout #6: Hedonistic Answers to Socratic Questions in Plato's Protagoras, PHIL 161: Topics in the History of Ethics, Fall 2004; Greek Ethics, Department of Philosophy, the University of California, San Diego. "Does Socrates really endorse hedonism, or is the hedonist denial of akrasia merely ad hominem or ironical?"
• David W. Orr and David Ehrenfeld, [1], Listserv for Environmental Studies, Virginia Tech, 9 January 1997, first published in Conservation Biology, Volume 9, No. 5, October 1995.
• Rebecca Culshaw, Harvey (FRW) Bialy. Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, North Atlantic Books, 2007, ISBN 1556436424. p. 60

The first one includes a quote of the relevant section.

The second one there are several parts that allude to the statement, but a specific quote is "Fourth, denial is manifest in ridicule and ad hominem attacks. ...". Why do you not think that it is a reliable source? If it is not a reliable source do you consider all the other sources in that already reside in the introduction reliable sources. For example what about the very first one which states that it is a blog and is not an a university site?

The third one many not represent the majority point of view, on aids but the source is not being used to support that POV it is being used to support a POV that is far from fringe, which without this point of view makes this a biased article. --PBS (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(i) Neither of the first two sources state that the label 'denialism' is an ad hominem attack. The first source is talking about a viewpoint that was expressed centuries before the English language (and thus the label) came into existence, and is talking about "denial of akrasia", not "denialism". The second source is talking about denial being a psychological source for ad hominem/ridicule attacks -- not that the label of "denial[ism]" is itself an attack. (ii) The second source is a listserv archive and inherently unreliable (being just a record of a bunch of emails), the third is unreliable per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources, as promoting the WP:FRINGE position of AIDS denialism. (see also WP:UNDUE) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one is not quoting an ancient source, it is a modern analysis. The second source is also a copy from a publication noted in the citation. Whether a book is presenting an a fringe view does not necessarily prohibit its use, particularly when the source is not being used to forward that fringe view. --PBS (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The "modern analysis" has nothing to do with whether the label "denialism" is an ad hominem, nor does the listserv material. The third source is most certainly "being used to forward that fringe view" -- by defending AIDS denialism by accusing those applying the label "denialism" on it as ad hominem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Denialism is not included in the Oxford English Dictionary.(Online Oxford English Dictionary, Retrieved June 29 2009) is not OR as it is covered by the source. -PBS (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can cite a source stating that it is not included, then yes, it is WP:OR -- specifically the original research of looking up the dictionary and finding that it's not there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also WP:OR in choosing which dictionary to look it up in. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The source is the OED that it its does not include it. It is not a primary source so a summary of the source is acceptable and the summary is that it does not include denialism. The OED is probably the definitive dictionary on the English language, so it is not as if I have picked a minor dictionary, feel free to add other dictionary definitions, to show that the OED is in a minority position. --PBS (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards, which is why I reverted your addition. The lack of the word in the dictionary is not a source itself, any more than the lack of an article about "XYZ" in the New York Times is a source that it's not in usage. In other words, the Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can find a source that actually makes a statement to support your assertion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You think I have got it backwards, I do not. I am summarising a news paper source I am summerising the most authoritative source on English that there is. That a word does not appear in the OED is in itself notable, just as the report on the first usage noted in the OED is notable and authoritative. --PBS (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* You're not getting it. Saying, "I don't see the word in the OED" is itself WP:OR. This article isn't about the word itself, but about the phenomenon. Trying to cite the OED is conflating the two, and you need a reliable source that says that this is important somehow. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED may be "notable" but it is also purposefully conservative in admitting words. Therefore, non-inclusion may only mean that a word is relatively new, used only as a term of art, etc -- not that the word is in some way invalid. Regardless, I agree with HTF, that all this is WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR to summarise an authoritative source, and it is useful information for a person reading this article to realise that the word has not yet been accepted into general usage. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are NOT "summaris[ing] an authoritative source" -- you are interpreting that source's silence. This is WP:Synthesis, as is your claim that "the word has not yet been accepted into general usage." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The additional summary was not put back by me, so the last delete did not delete the phrase "the word has not yet been accepted into general usage." it only deleted " Denialism is not included in the Oxford English Dictionary."[2], there is no WP:Synthesis in that sentence. --PBS (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

← The fact that the word isn't in the OED is really off-topic for the article, though. By including that statement, you're implying that it's not a real word at all. That's the problem, as I perceive it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You may draw that implication, but that does not invalidate the summary of the source. As the OED is a very reliable source on the meaning of and dating of first use of a word, it is not off-topic when it is a word and not an entity is the subject of an article. For example what is the reliable source being used for "Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists." that is exactly the sort of definition that ought to be sourced from a reliable dictionary. Also what is the authoritative source for "The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism'"? again usually such information would come from a dictionary. --PBS (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have an WP:RS saying that Denalism not being included is relevant in some way, or an WP:RS about denialism that makes this point, then it is WP:OR. It needs to be linked to the subject by an RS. Related q: Is the online OED the full, shorter or concise edition? Verbal chat 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED is not a primary source, so it does not need a secondary source to describe it. If there was an entry in the OED, then it would be a more authoritative entry than any of the current sources listed at the end of the first paragraph, for definition and date of first use. The lack of an entry of an English word in the OED is also a relevant fact. I can see no reason why anyone would wish to ignore that fact unless they wish to present a certain unbalanced POV. The OED online is the full OED 1989 2nd edition with electronic updates -- hence the "ADDITIONS SERIES 1997" mentioned above. See this URL) for a portal onto the site--PBS (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I think it is needed, but here is a secondary academic source about an academic source: "The Oxford English Dictionary Online is the world's leading authority on the history and evolution of the English language since 1150. Highly and widely-acclaimed, it has also proved to be one of the most popular JISC resources with 134 subscribers in higher and further education institutions as at May 2006."[3] here is another one: "[OED] The most authoritative and comprehensive dictionary of English in the world and a definitive record of English language development"[4] --PBS (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You need a WP:RS that describes the lack of an entry for this word, and why that means anything. Otherwise it's WP:OR. Verbal chat 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You interpretation of OR causes real problems for the selection of any source. For example take any source used in this article, AFAICT by your thinking, unless another secondary source says that it is OK to use the first source in this article then it is OR to use it! What benefit do you see in excluding the fact that "the world's leading authority on the history and evolution of the English language" does not list a word? --PBS (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. If the OED included a word, then we can use the OED as a source, but we cannot source omission unless we have a source which says that the omission is relevant to the topic. This is normal. The OED is a work in progress, like wikipedia, and not listing a word does not mean that word doesn't exist or is even well used - the OED state this themselves. If you find a source all these objections will disappear. Any source that meets WP:RS and is related to the topic is fine. A WP:RS that doesn't mention the topic needs to be justified, and if not mentioning the topic is why you think it is relevant then you need a WP:RS which says that, otherwise it's WP:OR. Verbal chat 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not all words in English are in the OED, but all words in that have been in general usage for any length of time are in the dictionary and if a word has been in use for any length of time and are not in the dictionary then they are either specific to a particular group, or they are slang. You and I are going to have to disagree on this one. But do you think you are serving the readership of this article, by excluding the OED as a source when an article is about an English language word? --PBS (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not excluding the OED as a source, nor have I implied that. Please, feel free to use it as a source for anything it actually contains. Verbal chat 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What about this "Denialism does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary and according to C. J. Hall 'Many English speakers would accept the claim that a word not in the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster's cannot be said to be a real English word at all' (Christopher J. Hall. An introduction to language and linguistics: breaking the language spell, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005, ISBN 0826487343 p. 20)."?--PBS (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Far too tenuous, doesn't mention this word. Seems this horse is dead. Verbal chat 15:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

←Again, I don't know why you're still trying to include this, except to try and imply that it's "not a real word." Many technical terms in psychology, sociology and other studies are not included in the OED, so it seems pointless to focus on this one. Are you trying to say it's a neologism, or something else? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the OED is reactive (i.e. it adds words that already exist; hence the citations that aim to document the first known appearance of words), the absence of any particular word is largely irrelevant. Were the OED to create words for people to use, then things would be different. I suspect that a number of WP articles will not appear in the OED, not just Denialism. That is not, of course, to say that we shouldn't be wary of adding temporarily fashionable neologisms, but if a word is used in multiple reliable sources, then we shouldn't be bound by the OED's conservative vocabulary. --PLUMBAGO 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, I should have noted that WP is reactive as well, but its nature does permit a much faster response to change than the more traditional OED. --PLUMBAGO 18:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this word is not in a major dictionary is relevant. Take for example another modern expression "ethnic cleansing" the OED places the first usage as 1991 and an entry for the expression first entered the dictionary in 2002, just 11 years after its first use in English. I do not mind much how we introduce this fact, but like its use to present a side in a dispute as the main stream when it is not, these facts should be included in this article, as it informs the readers and it balances the POV.

There is a problem with the definition "Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists" Who says this is the definition?

within that definition is the statement "a scientific or scholarly consensus exists" is fine when one is talking about hard science but what about in the social sciences like comparative genocide studies or history? Who then defines that a "scholarly consensus [does or does not] exist"? For example which schools of thought are the denialists in the debate over the causes of the English Civil War? What happens as in the case of the Tasmanian genocide when there is a consensus amoung comparative genocide scholars that a genocide took place, while the majority of Australian historians do not? What then is denialism?

Once one moves from hard science, and into genocide and the realm of politics, the use of this word is far from simple to define. For example there are those who claim that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza during their invasion was genocidal if someone then denys that the intent was genocide are they a denialist engaged in denialism?

At the moment I am concentrating on the problems of the certainty in the definition at the start of the article and the use of the word in social sciences and politics while ignoring totally the whole area in hard science, of revisionism and paradigm shifts which is another vista that this article ignores. --PBS (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope no one is going to have to refer you to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the point that you think I have not got? --PBS (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My previous comment would be a good place to start. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your last comment. Did you read what I have posted since? I think I have made it clear, why I think that the article is biased to a certain point of view. -- PBS (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A neutral point of view

What I am concerned with is that this article does not even hint at the fact that the word denialism is not a common word, and that its use can be a trick of rhetoric. It can be used a trick of rhetoric, because it allows the author to frame the debate. Someone can only deny something if that something is true. I believe that excluding such information in this article does not benefit our readers.

The problem of it being used as a rhetorical weapon is particularly common in genocide studies, which is fraught with all sorts of problems not least of which is that there is no one agreed definition of genocide and in many cases that some consider to be genocide are not considered to be genocide by others. An example are the allegations of genocide made by the Algerians against the French, which the Turks used as a political club against France when France recognised the Armenian genocide. --PBS (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is that the word is so little used in reliable sources returned by a Google books and scholar search, that it is verging on a neologism in English, for that reason the sources are poor, but it is necessary to present both sides of the usage of the word or we end up with a non neutral point of view in the article. I am open to suggestions as to how we can include both views in such a way that everyone is happy. --PBS (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

The first paragraph cites three sources:

1. What is Denialism Mark Hoofnagle, Chris Hoofnagle. ScienceBlogs.</ref>
2. See, e.g., Stoff, Rick (2007). "'Denialism' and muddying the waters". St. Louis Journalism Review. 37 (296): 21–33, 2p. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)
3. Diethelm, PA and McKee, M (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?". European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Is the first one a reliable source? Usually blog sites are not considered reliable sources, why is this blog site different? --PBS (talk)

Sb is a fairly reliable source. Certainly reliable enough to determine that it's actually Chris Hoofnagle writing. So at worst it's a self-published source written by an authority on denialism. So yes, it's an RS. Guettarda (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says he is an authority on denialism? --PBS (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If no source can be found that says he is an authority on denialism, or the page is not cited in academic journals then the page is not reliable as defined in WP:SOURCES and should not be included as a cited source. --PBS (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)