Talk:Denialism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

xyz denialism

If we are going to list various titles with the word denialism in them then the sources should use the term and they should be reliable sources. It is easy to find reliable sources that use the term "AIDS denialism" but the only Google book, or scholar source, I could find for "vaccine denialism" was one which quotes this article "United Nations Overpopulation Denial Conference exploring the underside of climate change (Draft)" there are total of three papers for "climate change denialism" including the Draft that quotes this page, and "evolution denialism", and only the Draft that quotes this page.

It may be that there are some reliable sources on the net itslf (news papers etc) for example I did a search on "evolution-denialism" and Google returned a Time article Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools but it turned out that the phrase "evolution-denialism" was only in the blog entries attached to the article.

I suggest that the sentence is rewritten to something link this "The term has been used with 'holocaust denialism', and 'AIDS denialism'. Other scientific facts and theories underpinning vaccination, climate change, and evolution, have also been subject to attacks by people who deny the the validity of the underlying science." As the sources supplied such as this one support such wording. --PBS (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I have found a source that gives a definition for denialism. "denialism is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of an historical experience or event." (A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943 by Paul O'Shea, Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1877058718. p.20). Unless a source can be found for the first sentence in the article I suggest that we replace the current definition with this one. If other definitions can be found then they can be summarised into a more complete definition but until such time as that is done this one can be used in quotes.--PBS (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Going on the assumption that we are taking the EJPH(and by extension denialism.com) as an accessible RS for the definition I am going to rewrite the section to reflect their wording. Revert if necessary. Unomi (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Is anthropogenic global warming, err uh I mean climate change, an "historical experience or event"? I think not. Of course, it's no wonder that the editors of this article -- over the course of it's nearly three year of existence -- are having trouble establishing a definition. Covering all the ground that they claim the term covers as a discrete phenomenon -- from the Holocaust to global warming to AIDS to evolution to vaccination -- is no easy task. In reality, canvassing how the word is used with any semblance of NPOV, shows that it's a pejorative used in polemics, plain and simple. And clearly, anyone who disagrees with me is merely engaging in, err uh, denialism. ô¿ô 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice blanket ad-hom. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See Irony. Duh... ô¿ô 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See /Archive 2#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 as a trick of rhetoric, because it allows the author to frame the debate. ..." --PBS (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All sorts of words can be used as tricks of rhetoric, that does not mean they cannot also be used legitimately. Many articles use words which are not very common: are we required to state every time "this word is not common"? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I endorse the point that this article is not NPOV - it reads like a ranting polemic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please be specific so it can be fixed if what you say is true. Verbal chat 07:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See /Archive 2#A neutral point of view, Here are two sources that express those views (Frank Furedi, a really bad idea cited by Michael Fitzpatrick in Stop this witch hunt against ‘evil deniers’ express a point of view that "Labelling everyone from critics of the AIDS industry to anti-vaccine cranks as ‘deniers’ is a way of shutting down debate and dissent." -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in the Oxford English Dictionary

See previous discussion /Archive 2#Denialism psychoanal

[1] I think it needs noting that this word does not appear in the OED. --PBS (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And that thread demonstrated that you didn't have support for that thought. I see no reason whatsoever to reopen the matter again. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no harm in continuing a discussion were there was not a consensus. I think it is important to note that this is not a commonly used word, and does not have a dictionary agreed definition. Do you think that is not a valid point that needs inclusion in some way? --PBS (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was that nobody agreed with you. This is simply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. PBS, you are the only editor who feels this should be included. No one else agrees, hence concensus is against you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You both argued that it was against Wikpedia policy not that it was a bad idea in itself to mention that it not a word used in dictionaries. I thought we were disusing ways in which such information could be included within policies, not that you thought it was detrimental to mention it in the article. Do either of you object to mentioning the fact that it is not a word include in the major general dictionaries, or just that to date we have not been able to agree on wording to incorporate that information? --PBS (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, and basic good editing, was and is again against you on this. Verbal chat 11:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear from that answer if you mean that you do not approve of incorporating this information or if you do not think that the information is pertinent to this article. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can bring what I and others asked for in the previous thread (hint: RS stating this is notable), then I'll consider that. You've brought nothing new, consensus was clear, and this thread has been correctly called by Hrafn. Verbal chat 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad idea until we can find reliable sources that show this is imporant to the term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? --PBS (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Whoops wrong section --PBS (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The every-editor-except-you consensus here and previously, and the consensus of the wikipedia community in forming the relevant guidelines and policies. Those ones. Verbal chat 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• PBS seems correct. The use of neologisms is considered bad writing which we should avoid. The proper word in this case is denial. This article seems to be a WP:POVFORK for purposes of tendentious synthesis contrary to our policies such as WP:SOAP and WP:COATRACK. It seems best to merge the article into the article Denial which properly focusses upon the psychological and emotional phenomenon without all the political baggage. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have one article on the psychological phenomenon and one on the political, especially since sources treat the two as different phenomena and refer to them using different names. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Denialism is not the same as Denial. In fact Colonel Warden, by contrasting his wish to cover the "psychological" meaning under "denial" with his wish not to cover the "political" meaning under "denialism" implicitly acknowledges that the words have different meanings. Dismissing the usage which he does not wish to have mentioned as "baggage" does not justify the wish to stop coverage of it. As for use of neologisms, while this tends to be discouraged there is no blanket ban, and in this case the word has a distinctive meaning, which has received a significant amount of coverage, and is not adequately covered by any other word. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson I read the statement "It seems best to merge the article into the article Denial which properly focusses upon the psychological and emotional phenomenon without all the political baggage." by User:Colonel Warden the other way from the way which you did, and if what you say "the word has a distinctive meaning, which has received a significant amount of coverage, and is not adequately covered by any other word." does that mean we remove all sources from this article (such as: The denial industry) that use the word "denial" instead of "denialism"? -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok - I retract (or at least weaken) my statement about sources using different names. But still, it seems pretty clear to me that these are two separate concepts. The Guardian article there, for example, is definitely talking about a political phenomenon (or 'industry') and not a psychological one. A POV-fork is a second article on the same subject which takes a non-neutral POV, which this doesn't seem to be to me at all. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought "does that mean we remove all sources from this article ... that use the word 'denial' instead of 'denialism' " was a joke, but on reflection I suppose it isn't, so I will try to answer it. Of course we shouldn't remove all sources which use the word "denial", nor should we remove all sources which don't use the word "denialism". The words are related, and have related meanings. It is perfectly possible to write something relevant to denialism without using the word "denialism", just as it is perfectly possible to write something relevant to trees without using the word "tree" (e.g. "There is a plantation of oaks across the road".) If I say "Abraham Lincoln did not order millions of Jews to be murdered" then that is a denial, but it is not denialism. If I say "Adolf Hitler did not order millions of Jews to be murdered" then that is a denial, and it is also denialism. Denial is frequently denialism, but not always. To suggest that because the two words are not exact synonyms it follows that anything using the word "denial" and not the word "denialism" cannot possibly be referring to denialism is absurd. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NEO which states, "...adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them. Editors should generally use established words instead of neologisms...". This guidance could hardly be clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it could hardly be clearer, and what it says is perfectly true: adding –ism to a word can indeed sometimes imply a belief system or political movement. However, since that is clearly not so in this case I do not see the relevance to this discussion. As for "Editors should generally use established words instead of neologisms", yes, we generally should. If we view "denialism" as a neologism then what non-neologism synonym can we use instead? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An article such as this would probably be more appropriate under the umbrella of Propaganda or something similar. We seem to agree that Denialism is a neologism. While there is established use of 'Denial', the case for 'Denialism' is less clear. To argue that this article does not fall under WP:NEO seems like Policy Denialism. Unomi (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

"Individuals, or groups ..." it has been over a month since a quote on the talk page was requested from the supporting citations on the talk page for the second paragraph. [2] If quotes to support the paragraph are not provided soon I will removed the paragraph. --PBS (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two footnotes, so I've removed the cn tag and the misused quote tags. Verbal chat 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Request quotation. Please explain why you think the quote tags were misused. --PBS (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two sources. What do you expect from a quote? What do you dispute? Verbal chat 11:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect quotes on the talk page to be from the cited sources which clearly support the wording in the second paragraph. I am not sure why you should remove the requests that have been there for over a month and are not unreasonable requests, particularly as I have not acted on the requests but given other editors plenty of time to find and quote the sources. I will reinstate the requests into the article so that other people can see that this has been requested while it is discussed on the talk page. --PBS (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not take a lot to find an open source that can help to support the sentence. For example quick, Google of the phrase "denialism refutes science conducted by thousands of researchers" turns up a number of unreliable sources and this on in Google books: Seth C. Kalichman, Nicoli Nattrass Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy‎, page 38. I am sure with more searching I could find more. But I had assumed that whoever had placed the citations in the article would have access to them. This is part of WP:PROVIT ("burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"), and the best way to get an article properly cited is to ask for accurate citations. Where the text of a citations are not available to all editors, to have the text in those citations quoted on the talk page if it is requested is not unresonable. User:Verbal instead of edit warring over my tags asking for improvements, why not look around for reliable sources to back up the sentences, or quote the relevant text in this section those which are already there? --PBS (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are specific citations to journals for that statement. Why do you need actual quotes, and why didn't you check the journals to provide them yourself? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that the sources support the sentences? Have you read the sources? If so can you quote the portions of the articles that support the Wikipedia sentence? If not why remove the templates asking for quotes to support the Wikipedia sentence? I have not read them because they are both available online but only through subscription, and as most people who wishes to check if the sources support the statement will also have to pay to view, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for a quote from the citations to support the sentence. If the sentences had been written and a citation had been given at the same time, it is more likely that the source supports a sentence. But when a sentence is written months before the first citation was given by a different editor to those who wrote the initial sentences (without changing a word when the citation was given), it is not unreasonable to ask for a quote on the talk page to show which sentences support the sentence in Wikipedia.[3] --PBS (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:V does not require that the source be free. If you really want to verify what they say, you can either pay the fee, or ask someone else to obtain a copy for you. And, let's be frank: if I wanted to lie, I could just make up a quote and say it's from the paid source. You'd never know without looking it up yourself (or getting someone else to). That's why placing a quote seems pointless to me, and is not required by WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to lie? If you have access to the sources please quote the relevant sections. If not do you not want the citations to be accurate, and how do you know that they are accurate given that the persons who added them did so without altering the text that already existed by a word, it is possible that they were mistaken and a quote on this page would fix that. Why did you remove my requests for quotes on the talk page and another citation, given that unless someone who is contribution to this page has access to the cited sources we can not know that they are accurate? For example it was clear from the sources available for the third paragraph, that the previous statement "The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism'" was not supported by the citations, so unless someone has access to the sources, for the second paragraph we can not be sure that the sources accurately support the current sentence unless someone is willing to provide the necessary quotes here on the talk page. --PBS (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• facepalm* You completely missed my point. WP:V exists because you're not supposed to take our word for it that the source says what we claim it does. Just putting in quotes doesn't solve the issue. It's not up to us to prove it to you; you should be relying on your own research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what I have said. So I'll break it down into sections. What do you think is the purpose of the template {{Request quotation}}? --PBS (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

← From the template: "This is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online or are difficult to obtain in order to check the editor's interpretation..." The source cited is available online and easily obtained. It doesn't count as "difficult to obtain" simply because they require a subscription fee to access. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you do not think that are difficult to obtain, but I do as to pay for ever single source that needs to be checked is not economic or practical. Do you have access to these two sources? --PBS (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I paid for them, I would. This is an age-old argument on Wikipedia. Consensus is that information behind a paywall is not a reason to discount a source. Just like you might not want to pay for books to verify citations, paying for web access is not a burden that fails Wikipedia's standards. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read these two sources? --PBS (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. Real life is taking priority over that right now. Have you? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No which is why I am asking for the quote. As I pointed out the citations were retrofitted to the text long after it was written, I do not think it unreasonable to ask for quotes to verify that the sources back up the statements. If you have not read them then you can not know if they do. --PBS (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to go to a library yourself if you're unwilling to trust anyone who says they support the text. Verbal chat 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read either of the papers? --PBS (talk)

Has anyone said that they support the text? --PBS (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal it is not disruptive to ask for verification of a citation. Have you read either of the papers? --PBS (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

← It is disruptive when you repeatedly spam a talk page witht he same question, especially when it's already been answered. The onus is on you to verify the information for yourself, and a quote is unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to request quotations on the talk page. It is not disruptive to ask someone who is removing such requests if they have read the articles. I am surprised that if you have not read the articles, that you would not like to check that the Wikipedia article reflects accurately what the sources state, as you must have followed the links which I provided to the history of the article to show that the citations were added many months after the sentences and that the sentences were not altered in any way to reflect the sources. --PBS (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is disruptive to repeatedly make the same demands. And I will check out those articles, but I do have a life outside Wikipedia (the last week of which was spent on vacation without Internet access). Your tendentiousness is becoming quite tiresome. The simple fact remains: quotations are useless in this situation. Until you read the articles in question, you cannot verify that any of it is true. Even if I were to provide quotations, why would you just believe me? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I not believe you? The quotations would allow anyone who reads the talk page or its archives to verify that the articles support the statement made in the Wikipedia article. My reading of WP:PROVEIT does not suggest that I am being disruptive asking for prof that a statement in a Wikipedia article is valid. Placing tags on the page and giving other editors time to validate the statement is not disruptive behaviour. If after a reasonable length of time the information can not be verified there is no reason why the statement should not be removed from the article until such time as verification is made. You have not read the citations, neither have I and as User:Verbal has expressed an opinion on this issue it is not unreasonable to ask if User:Verbal has read the articles. --PBS (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? I could make up any quotation I wanted to support the citation, and you wouldn't know if you didn't read the source material yourself. Until you do that, you won't know, so why don't you just do that and save us all a lot of headache? I'm done debating this WP:POINT of yours, and if you continue to be disruptive I will escalate warnings about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith amoung editors. I assume that editors may make mistakes (the reason for asking for the quotes to verify that they have not made a mistake), but I would not assume that an editor would deliberately make up quotes to deceive other editors. If you say that you have read the articles and quote the relevant sections on this page, I will believe that the quotes are genuine. In the mean time I will continue to ask for the quotes to be provided, because it is better that Wikipeia has no information than wrong information. --PBS (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not assuming good faith that the citations are correct? For the last time, if you want to verify the information, do it yourself. Replacing the quotation tags at this point will be considered vandalism and reported as such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits which are made in good faith are not vandalism.

Someone can add a citation in good faith without it being correct. For example the sentence in this article that started "The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism'" the citations given for that did not explicitly state that that was the first use [4]. It was the first use recorded in the sources given, and it was an easy mistake to make, but the sources did not actually say that this was the first use (I'm guessing but it is more likely that denialism was first used in one of those turgid Marxist papers that were written in stilted English translated from German or Russian some time before WWII). Or should we have left the claim "The term was first used in the sense of ..." just because it was added in good faith even if the citations do not support it? --PBS (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits made tendentiously in the face of consensus are vandalism. I'm tired of banging my head against this particular wall. If you're really determined on this point, file an WP:RFC for outside input. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

<--User:HandThatFeeds, you are reverting against WP:PROVIT, See the sentence "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." and the footnote that immediately follows it "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference". I have pointed out that the sources were added to the sentence months after the sentences were added to the article, with no modification of the sentences to fit the sources. Now it may be that the sources perfectly fit the article text, but it is not unreasonable to seek clarification that the sources back up the text as written. You have said on this talk page that you have not read the source, yet you are removing a request for clarification. Why are you doing that? --PBS (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:PROVIT even states repeatedly a that citations are required, multiple times. The footnote says that quotes are a courtesy, not a requirement. Again, you are Wikilawyering when you could just read the damn thing yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference". Seems to me that based on this text from WP:PROVEIT As I have requested quotes it is not up to you to remove those requests. --PBS (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy. Not requirement. You've made your requests very clear, and if you want something other than the consensus currently here, file an RFC as I suggested. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? --PBS (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll refer to Verbals reply to you in your misplaced post above. No one on this page has agreed with you. Consensus has been that your requests are not relevant to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As this conversation has revolved around three people discussing a point, that is hardly a consensus one way or another. In the last 500 edits all you have done is undo other editors edits, and apart from reverting others edits all I can find that Verbal has done is this one edit. Why is it that you will not allow this article to be developed further? As you have not read the sources I am questioning. Why not find some that do support the sentence or make some other positive contribution to the article? --PBS (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You could say I'm impartial and univolved. Please bring RS and suggest improvements you'd like to make. Probably best if you do that in a new section, and not reopen recent debates (such as this, and the dictionary one) Verbal chat 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my intention to work through the article paragraph by paragraph. I have already been through paragraph 1 and paragraph 3. So back to paragraph two. Have you read the two sources that are currently attached to paragraph two? --PBS (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why Philip Baird Shearer (who signs "PBS") is taking this obstructive line. Is any of the statements in the article disputed? If not then to take the line "Wikipedia policy is that the onus is on you to provide and verify sources" is empty wikilawyering: policies exist to serve a purpose, and in this case the purpose is to resolve doubt in the case of disputed claims. If, on the other hand, Philip Baird Shearer does dispute some of the statements, then it would be far more helpful to state exactly what he disputes and why. At least one of the tags for verification which he has placed is actually on a source which is fully and freely available online, so he could easily check it if he wanted to, so why does he instead tag it for verification? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Which source is on line? -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On reading that question I went back to the article to see. The very first reference that I saw tagged for verification turned out to be available. Presumably anyone else could have found it as easily as I did. I can only repeat he could easily check it if he wanted to. I will give a link to this one, but I am not spending any more time on checking for others: you can do so as easily as I can, and I have already wasted enough time on this. [5] JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which paragraph in that sources do you think covers "Common forms of denialism arising from ideologies..." for any of these areas of research Holocaust, Holodomor, AIDS, the vaccines, and evolution? Because I could not find in that source any paragraph that covers the first phrase and even if it did I could not find any sentence that mentions "Holodomor denial" (as one example) in that reference. -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read my comments carefully you will see that I said that the source was available for anyone to verify whether or not it supports the statements in the article. I did not say that I had done that verification, nor have I: I have spent too long already on this rather unhelpful discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that you had verified anything. But I assumed that as the template used was {{verification needed}}, that you know it says "Use this inline template tag to label text which appears doubtful or false and to request source verification. ... In general, add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify information has been made." I have read the source and I do not think it supports the sentence, but I may not be correct, hence my question to you, because it seems that the way forward is to use this template when the source does not seem to back up the statement in the article, rather than immediately deleting the sentence (WP:PROVEIT). Using this tag allows editors who are interested in the article, to explain how the source supports the statement, either by removing the tag, in which case I will ask them to explain how it does so (just as I have asked you), or by finding a source that does support the statement. Note the changes I have made to the first an third paragraphs in the lead. In the first case I replaced the paragraph with a new one which was supported by a source, and in the third one I rewrote it so that the wording is supported by the source. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have access to Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? The following is a quote from it which seems to support the statement it's used to cite: "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none." I'm about to go catch a train so I don't have time to read the whole paper (or the whole of the above argument, fun as I'm sure that would be). If anyone would like me to check anything else in the paper, give me a note on my talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That covers the second half of the sentence but do they cover the main assertion "Individuals, or groups ... are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes"? Because AFAICT individual or groups who "reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists", are engaged in denialism when they use "rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." whatever the motive for doing so. Do the sources cover the first half of the sentence?

There is a further problem with this sentence as one can be a revisionist scientist who "reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists" and still be correct, for example those scientists who reject a paradigm before a paradigm shift takes place. Denial is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality, not the rejection of a academic consensus, unless one rejects the concept of paradigm shifts (would that make one a denialist?). An example of the former is David Irving's comment "I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war." and example of the latter is Einstein before his new views became the scientific orthodoxy. So although Hoofnagle brothers may make the claim, it is only true if the arguments are "just rhetorical tactics" (at one point Irving said that the gas chambers at Auschwitz killed no-one, when challenged over this he said he was correct because the ones that exist there now were built after the war -- which is an good example of a rhetorical trick that this sentence rightly disparages), but I think that the current construction of the sentence, is misleading (one could say a rhetorical trick) and needs to be rewritten based on just the sources. --PBS (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Davis, I see that you have replied to a posting in the next section after this date. Have you had time to check to see if the first part of the sentence is supported by the sources? --PBS (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I glanced at this section and saw my name was the last item here without realising you'd replied above it. I haven't had time to check, no (I was deprived of internet access all last week); I'll reply if and when I do. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can check if my institution has access to any other journals which are causing problems. I haven't done so but let me know if it'd be helpful. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If no-one can confirm that that the first part of the sentence is supported by the sources. I propose to remove it. It can always be replaced once the sources have been read and it can be confirmed that they support the sentence. -- PBS (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the consensus above. I suggest WP:IGNORE be invoked here as well. Verbal chat 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping inaccurate information in an article for which there is not a verified source, is not within policy. Olaf Davis says that he will check when he has time. Until it is verified that the source supports all of the paragraph I suggest that we removed it. -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of article for deletion

Since the word "denialism" isn't a word in the New Oxford English Dictionary, and the term is not commonly used, I nominate the article for deletion. WriterHound (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Lots of concepts, labelled by words, appear in wikipedia and other encyclopaedias that are not in the dictionary. If you want to nominate it for deletion see how at WP:AFD. However, please discuss your reasoning here. If the above details all your objections then I don't think the nomination will succeed. The article meets WP:V and WP:GNG, policies which define our inclusion criteria. Verbal chat 20:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. If you really want to nominate the article for deletion, feel free. Just don't expect it to work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, after looking at some of the source articles, it seems that it is a concept which is used by some people and thus may make sense to have an article on. The only problem is that it seems to be used to try to dismiss anything that someone doesn't agree with. It is more of a word used as a weapon, rather than one for reasonable discourse. There is definitely a problem with mixing political POV in the article and description of the concept and I'm not sure that the two can easily be separated.

WriterHound (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh. That's a problem with any term that gets politicized. Hell, look at environmentalism. Suffice to say, it can be used to dispariage, but that's not what the article's about. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Talk:Denialism#Not in the Oxford English Dictionary in your link above, THTFY. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The new Oxford English Dictionary was published in 1989. The latest edition that I can find evidence for was published in 2001, and of course the material for it was collected before the publication date. Therefore the dictionary's record of the English language is a few years out of date. The fact that a word is not recorded in a dictionary is not evidence that the word does not exist. There is a popular but totally unfounded view that a dictionary somehow defines what words exist. On this view people may have been using a particular expression for years, but it is not a word, and so they have no right to use it, and then one day the publishers of a dictionary decide to include the expression, even though it is not a word; then overnight it becomes a word, and it becomes alright to use it. This makes no sense at all; all words are established before they are recorded in dictionaries. As for the claim that the word "is not commonly used", in my experience it is quite commonly used. My experience is supported by a Google search, which gives 991000 hits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The online version of the OED is being updated all the time.[6][7] I think it is important to mention in this article that this word in not yet in the major dictionaries. --PBS (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The online version of the OED is being updated all the time: OK, that makes the dates I gave irrelevant, but it does not alter my central point, which is that dictionaries record usage, and the fact that a dictionary has not recorded a usage does not devalue that usage.

I think it is important to mention in this article that this word in not yet in the major dictionaries: Why? What has the presence or absence of a word in a dictionary got to do with anything at all in the article? Except for people who persist in the prescriptivist view that not being recorded in a dictionary makes a word somehow less valid, somehow "not really a word", I cannot see any earthly relevance. Dictionaries serve several purposes, including: finding the meaning of a word you don't understand; finding the most widely accepted pronunciation(s) of a word which you don't know how to pronounce; (some dictionaries) finding the etymology and history of a word which you don't know the history of. None of these is remotely relevant here, and I don't see any useful purpose that would be served by putting this in the article. Furthermore the article is about the concept of denialism, not about the word "denialism", so information about the word would be out of place. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." The trouble is that if a word is not in the major dictionaries or other definitive sources, one ends up through the looking glass, with the word meaning whatever an author wants it to mean, particularly if they do not define what they mean before they use it! --PBS (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true regardless of the word's presence or absence in a dictionary, really. Journalists and authors use the word 'denialism', giving it a meaning they've derived by reading and hearing other uses of it. If the OED added it would those authors start looking it up before using it to check they had the 'correct' meaning? Of course not, just as they don't stop to look up most words before using them. Words 'meaning whatever an author wants [them] to mean' is how language works, with native speakers basing their useage on what previous users have done.

Anyway, we can discuss the role of dictionaries in shaping native speakers' language use as much as we want, but the contents of the article should still be based on reliable sources. As has been remarked before, if you can find reliable sources which say that the absence of the word from dictionaries is significant to the concept of denialism (which as James says is the topic of this article) then by all means let's mention it. If not, our own opinions on its significance are fairly unimportant. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I was reading Shewring's] translation of "Homer The Odyssey" and in chapter X Cire. In a footnote he quotes John Ogilby's translation of a phrase "I ebb'd the bowl, but no effect it had" and mentions "This vigorous use of 'ebb' for 'drain' seems unrecorded in dictionaries" (p. 121 of my paperback edition). It seems to me that if this is acceptable in such a work it is also reasonable to note here that the word "Denialism" does not appear in the OED. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[ Continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT userfied to User talk:Philip Baird Shearer, per WP:TALK "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Philip Baird Shearer: if you continue to disruptively re-raise this issue, or to (again disruptively) attempt to dearchive/de-userfy your immediately previous re-raising of it, against the WP:CONSENSUS that it is settled, I will call for a topic-ban on you. (Oh and an archiving-reason is not a comment, so does not require (nor normally includes) a signature.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ]

Nomination of article for deletion

Talk:Denialism/Archive 2#Nomination of article for deletion for a section archived out of chronological order. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Section now archived directly above this one so back in sequence. -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1. As has already been pointed out, 'suggestions' nominations of deletion belong on WP:AFD.
2. The section in question was removed per WP:TALK: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article", which makes no requirement that removal be in "chronological order".
3. As the material was "not relevant to improving the article", this section linking to it serves no possible purpose, other than for Philip Baird Shearer to make one more WP:POINT (in a very long line of them).
4. If past experience is anything to go on, Philip Baird Shearer will feel compelled to dispute, argue, re-raise or "beseech" this. I would like to pre-emptively state that I (i) reject his premises, (ii) reject his logic & (iii) fully expect there to be empty rhetoric lacking any basis in either i or ii, which I likewise reject. ([8])

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Next step

What is the next appropriate step if Philip Baird Shearer continues his disruption of this page? Is it:

• a User WP:RFC/'Conduct Discussion'
• a report to WP:ANI?
• some other course of action?

I must admit I'm not up-to-speed on the administrative niceties of such situations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate methodology and tactics

"Denialism is a form of propaganda covering a variety of activities. ...". Does anyone have any reliable sources that covers this first sentence and the rest of the first paragraph in the section Denialism#Illegitimate methodology and tactics? -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Reverted 1 edit by Philip Baird Shearer; Rvt WP:BOLD edit - please discuss on talk." by user:Verbal What is it you wish to discuss ? -- PBS (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted here and I waited 24 hours before reverting, as user:Verbal suggested that I discuss the edit on the talk page. Before anyone reverts again please provide reliable sources (as defined at WP:SOURCES for all the paragraphs that I replaced with this edit (See WP:PROVEIT) "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." -- PBS (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the page:

22:10, 5 November 2009 Verbal "(Reverted 5 edits by Philip Baird Shearer; Please establish consensus for your changes."

user:Verbal you have not explained what it was of the 5 edits I made that you object to. Further you are reverting to a version which contains text without sources, please see WP:PROVEIT) "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." -- PBS (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this really ready for mainspace?

Sorry, but the 'article' reads more like a poorly structured essay at this point. Most of the sources don't even mention 'denialism' or even 'denialists'

random sources
Source	No Denialism	No Denialists	Only 'AIDS/HIV Denialism'	Only 'Holocaust Denialism'
ref 22	X	X	NA	NA
ref 5			X
ref 6			X
ref 7			X
ref 8			X
ref 11	X
ref 13	X	X
ref 14	X	X
ref 15	X	X
ref 26	X	X

Etc, please do complete the above table if you see fit. It looks as though you have exactly 1 (one) source which describes 'denialism' and it is denialism.com, aka denialism blog which is not really an RS for anything except some cranks' opinion on other cranks. So whats the deal? This smacks of a huge WP:SYNTH,WP:OR and yes WP:NEO violation unless I missed a critical source in there somewhere, if so, please do point it out. Yes, 'AIDS denialism' is pretty well established, but err we already have an article on it. We don't have one on Holocaust denialism, because that is generally just known as Holocaust denial. Yet somehow you guys have seen fit to create a 'Denialism' category etc. I really think you should take steps to state the sources you base this on clearly. Unomi (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that just renaming the article "Denial Movements" would fix all of the WP:NEO issues immediately. Artw (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The AfD seems to suggest consensus is that it is ready for mainspace, and I would oppose a rename at present. I don't see any NEO issues. Verbal chat 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? The more I look at it the more I see huge problems with the lede. I would suggets scrapping it and rebuilding it along the line of the sources you actually have. Artw (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, most likely we should just scrap all the other and leave those treatments for their relevant examples. .. btw, denialism.com lifted their 5 points from : http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html and those points probably need some in depth treatment, for now I have just linked to the relevant fallacies. Unomi (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have restructured a bit, there are still some issues with sources, the mmr connection for one is a bit loose so far. Let me know what you think of the edits, it still lacks quite a bit of wordsmithing, but I am going to leave that for someone else, for the moment. Unomi (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New Sources

1. http://www.newsweek.com/id/32312
2. http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/2158/abominable_no_men.html
3. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2792
4. http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/05/denialism-what-is-it-and-how-should.html
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/books/excerpt-michael-specter.html?_r=1
6. http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html -- This is where denialism.com got their 5 points from (which is where our EJPH RS got its definition from.

Unomi (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Neologism

Since this is a widely-used term in reliable sources, I can't see how a neologism tag is justifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that the article may be made to conform to WP:NEO. however many users have expresed the opinion at the AfD deletion that currently it doesn't. I'd suggest working on the article rather than arguing the toss. Artw (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you add a tag, you need to say why you think this tag is justified. Why do you think the word "denialism" is a neologism? If somebody has written a book analysing this phenomenon, and the book has been reviewed in the NYT, I don't see how anybody can argue that the word isn't used in reliable secondary sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You've got two quotes, both of which have been divorced from context to make them look like general definitions, and then the rest of the article consists of a bunch of WP:SYNTHy stuff where any match for the term is treated as meaning the exact same thing. Get a cite in there that supports a broad, general definition of the term and you won't have any WP:NEO problems. Artw (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If we accept that this is a faithful reproduction of the article in European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 19, 2009. And we further accept EJPH as an RS then we are led to a definition of the concept as : the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists. and that Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.

according to denialismblog(the source for the article in EJPH (and by extension RS??)) 5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic. Unomi (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIT makes it clear in the section "Say where you found the material (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), how a citation of this ought to be handled. -- PBS (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Artw, the AfD is not going to close with a delete so we have to live with an article on denialism. The definitions I added to the start of the article are a dam site better than what was there before. You write " Get a cite in there that supports a broad, general definition of the term and you won't have any WP:NEO problems." Yes but the problem is that while a general definition may be found, it will be a narrow definition based on the opinions of the author and anyone who mentions it. It will only be a broad definition if it appears in a dictionary like the Oxford English Dicitionary. (I wait in anticipation to see if User:Hrafn is going {{hat}} this comment) --PBS (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Denialism blog as rs for definition and characteristics?

We probably need to get some consensus regarding use of http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php as an RS. This will make things much easier as opposed to using the paywalled European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 19, 2009 article, which credits denialismblog as source for its definition.

No Objection, expedient and available. Unomi (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Scienceblogs are generally accepted as RS (Seed magazine sponsorship, experts-as-bloggers), so I have no objections to its being used. However we should probably keep its use to a minimum, particularly for opinions (per WP:DUE, as any blog is hardly a 'prominent' source). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, here I am just talking about fixing a definition for denialism. Are there any other sources that come to mind regarding a definition? Unomi (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php is not a reliable source. It is fundamentally different from http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/05/denialism-what-is-it-and-how-should.html as the latter is a copy of a reliable source, and providing that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is followed, should be acceptable as a source. -- PBS (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you are completely ignoring the "experts-as-bloggers" bit mentioned by Hrafn? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As this article is about a word, it is debatable if there are any experts on it, how does one define expert in this case? It seems to me much better to build this article on reliable sources as defined in WP:SOURCES. -- PBS (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the opinions here, there are two editors who feel this site is a reliable source, since it was cited in a journal as a source of reliable information, and one person who thinks it is not a reliable source. I'm not seeing, PBS, how you manage to interpret this discussion as concluding that the site is not a RS. In fact, to me the consensus seems that it is acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also note that the denialism blog has been highlighted in The Open Laboratory: The Best Science Writing on Blogs 2007. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit clash) Only the information mentioned in the reliable source can be assumed to be reliable. You can mention that there are five techiques but only the first one is discussed in the reliable source. You are extrapolating that the authors of the reliable source think that the rest of the information on the blog page is correct. -- PBS (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A search Google search on lulu.com the publisher of the "The Open Laboratory: ..." returns for the lulucom site "Lulu.com lets you publish and sell print-on-demand books and e-books, online music and images, custom calendars and books. Free self-publishing." So the book is not a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The major use of denialism is not in the scientific arena (despite the leanings of this article), it is in the political/historical/nationalistic arena particularly in denial of various genocides, see for example Report about Case Srebrenica which is building a case to try undermine the judgements returned by the ICTY and ICJ court cases. -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll cite the Guardian piece by Hoofnagle, which makes exactly the same points. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How do initial blog postings at The Grauniad work? Is the process it like a letter to the editor, or more like an opinion piece published within the paper? -- PBS (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think a blog hosted by a major broadsheet newspaper is not a reliable source, then I suggest you raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. I think this is entirely acceptable as a source. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Issue raised: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Guardian_blog_articles. Jayjg pointed out footnote six of WP:V:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

ScienceBlogs is a "virtual network". (from 2006):"Scienceblogs.com was launched last January by Seed Media Group, publishers of SEED magazine. Seed recruited 15 of the best known independent science bloggers, offered to compensate them based on traffic, and set them loose to blog about whatever they wanted." [[9]]. There is no editorial control. I'm not sure about the Guardian. stmrlbs|talk 03:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Rearangement.

The AfD is going to be closed with no agreement to delete. So we have to live with what we have.

Unomi I don't think your rearrangement works. Here are the reasons why:

Lead

• 1) Why add "as a concept" before the initial quote?
• 2) The paragraph "Denialism as a process operates..." is only one view of what Denialism is and should be attributed to the reliable source that has been quoted. However unless you have read the reliable source then the blog site must be cited stating that it is a copy of a reliable source.

The lead should be a summary of the whole article currently it is not.

Body

I think it is a mistake to reorganise it in the way you have. It makes it difficult to write about Denialism as a concept, and for example the Evans quote supports the Cameron quotes, but he was involved in a Holocaust denialism case and was talking about the techniques used by people trying to present a biased view of history.

I was going to talk about scrapping "Corporate denialism" and "Political denialism" or at least removing them as sections as they present a biased POV with not corresponding views from the targeted organizations. Besides there is already an article called Climate change denial that covers Exxon far better than this article. -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, the text for the definitions were lifted near verbatim from http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/05/denialism-what-is-it-and-how-should.html

“ The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists. ”

...

“ Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. ”

.

It seemed as though the paper was conceiving of two modalities of the word.

I intentionally moved all the sources to their specific 'arena' so to speak. As we now(?) have an RS which gives us a definitive definition we have moved beyond the need to stoop to synth. Those passages might be better for specifying how actors and reporters in those areas saw denialism instantiated.

That said, I think you are correct that they have some value beyond that, historical context or evolution of a term.. but that would, I suppose, be OR. In any case, knock yourself out :) I think you probably have some time to make changes as you see fit, make the most of it and see where it goes. Be Bold. I am off to bed. Unomi (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing I will say though, I think that it makes sense to have as different examples as possible, Climate change denial is an existing article, and we should obviously link to it, but perhaps pointing out how those 5 tactics came into play would be educational. Unomi (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the content of this section interesting. A couple of editors try hard to push their opinion that the article should be deleted, consistently playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when people who disagree with them answer their objections (appropriately enough an excellent example of Denialism). When eventually it becomes so clear that consensus is solidly against them that even they realise they are not going to get their deletion. Then what do they decide? "Although I disagree I will accept consensus"? Not at all, but rather "Since I am forced to accept the consensus view that the article can exist I will now start working on reshaping the article, and 'scrapping' parts of it to make it fit closer to my minority view". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"A couple of editors try hard to push their opinion that the article should be deleted" which couple of editors would that be? -- PBS (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall the discussions on this talkpage have been very constructive and have resulted in what I think is a much improved article with much better sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest scrapping "Political denialism" and "corporate denialism" and just have a single heading for "climate change denial." HIV/AIDS and the Holocaust are both grouped by the thing denied, not by the motive; for something like the Holocaust, you could have white/German nationalism, or you could have Islamism motivating it--those are hugely different reasons. More to the point, the heading is "Examples of Use", not "Driving forces." It makes the whole thing clumsy. And neither address the possibility of, say, a person denying anthropogenic climate change with no political or corporate motive, but merely because a person likes the creature comfort of driving two blocks in an SUV instead of walking. Dolewhite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree with the proposal to merge the two subsections "Political denialism" and "corporate denialism" into one called "climate change denial". If no one objects, shall we go ahead and do that? --Nigelj (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Hoofnagle

If Mark Hoofnagle isn't even notable enough to have his own article, why is he named and quoted in the lead-in of this article? That sentence should be reworded to exclude his name.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Giving Hoofnagle's opinion such prominence certainly needs justification. Is he significant enough? Are they just the opinions of an individual who writes in a blog and once wrote a brief newspaper article, or is he more notable than that? However, someone may not be notable enough for an article of their own, but still have enough relevance to a notable topic to feature prominently in an article on it. (This is assuming that he is not notable enough to have an article: certainly the fact that he has not currently got an article does not establish that.) Hoofnagle has received a considerable amount of attention, including some from such prominent sources as The New York Times and The Guardian. I think he is certainly notable enough to be quoted prominently in an article. Nevertheless, having read the above post I was prompted to look up the references given for Mark Hoofnagle's opinions, and found them seriously lacking. None of the sources cited contains the quote to which they are attached in the first part of the sentence about him, and at least one of them is to an unreliable source, so I shall remove them, and tag the statement as needing citation. (Confusingly 3 sources were combined into one {{ref}}.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The source cited is the European Journal of Public Health, which is reliable and contains the quote cited, the blog link is a free-access copy of part of that EJPH article included for your convenience. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But to be in the opening paragraph he should be notable enough to at least have an article. I say keep his name and move it to a less prominent position, or remove his name and leave it where it is. I'm not going to be the last reader to be curious about this.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for Tina Smith.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

creationism

why & why was the significant reference to evolution denial removed from this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.25.232 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

vaccination denialism has also been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.95.136 (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was TimVickers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) around 6 November 2009.

I think the edit was this one when I removed instances there were only supported by blogs, or where only one example of the term was supplied. This aimed to focus the article on the most common and verifiable uses of the term. If good sources are forthcoming, these examples can be replaced. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-psychology, Overpopulation denialism, Global warming denialism, Big-bang theory denialism, and round-earth denialism are also good things to investigate inclusion possibilities on. Shanoman (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Rel. source

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/13/specter.denying.science/ - BalthCat (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

I propose to move the content of the section " up into the section "Analysis of the term and its usage" and then merge them to remove the repetition.

I also propose as a second step that the subsections "Examples of use" are removed as they are riddled with POVs and as far as I can tell do not help to elucidate what denialism is. -- PBS (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

June 2010

Copied from the section above:

I will not revert it for now, but you have still not convnced me it is correct. However, I will extend good faith and review the article later. Please do not make the edits which remove information or add new material without first giving justification. Verbal chat 09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is my intention to step through the edits one at a time, and then wait at time before I make the next one or for you to comment on this page. -- PBS (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You might have to wait a few days. Why not just discuss them here first? Verbal chat

See this comment. Stepping through the changes allows me to understand what it is that you object to as previously you seemed unwilling to sort the wheat from the chaff by only reverting those edits you objected to. -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For the moment I am not going to implement this edit "22:36, 21 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Examples of use: Removed see talk page.)" but leave it to last, as I suspect it is the one that Verbal objects to the most. So the next edit combines to sections that say similar things. -- PBS (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the Tara Smith paragraph add that the other paragraphs do not cover? -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

She has her own BLP article here (Tara C. Smith), and this article is mentioned there. --Nigelj (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A link to her name is not a reason for keeping a paragraph in an article. What is the information included in the paragraph that helps to explain what denialism is that is not already in the section? -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The information is that a notable person has made a notable contribution to the debate, which is helping to build an academic consensus about certain angles. This article is not over-long, WP is WP:NOTPAPER, and we do not have to ration mentions of each aspect. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is in need of copy editing because it is the amalgamation of several set of additions and edits. For example we have:

• "is defined by rhetorical tactics designed to give the impression of a legitimate debate among experts when in fact there is none".
• "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

We also have other quotes that says similar things and have overlapping meanings. You say "The information is that a notable person has made a notable contribution to the debate" but there is no evidence that a assistant professor of epidemiology or a medical doctor, physiologist and blogger, are are particularly notable people They have been selected by Wikipedia to highlight some points over what denialism, a neologism, means. This does not mean that the points are so important and unique that we can not copy edit the text to make it less verbose and more preside. Personally I would be more in favour of junking Mark Hoofnagle who is in my opinion not saying much more than the others are saying and is in my opinion probably the least notable of those quoted. -- PBS (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with improving the style, the prose and editorialising similar or conflicting statements together to make more sense of them. What I objected to was that I understood your original objection to mean that you were planning on simply deleting the paragraph and the reference, simply because it was further evidence for some consensus among academic writers. That approach would leave us with an article that gives the impression that only one or two people have commented on this, and they seem largely to disagree. At present, the opposite case emerges: several notable people have made similar pronouncements, which is much nearer the truth. If you want to try to find a way of combining the referenced works to show this more clearly, please go ahead. --Nigelj (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"I understood your original objection to mean that you were planning on simply deleting the paragraph and the reference, simply because it was further evidence for some consensus among academic writers", how could you draw that conclusion from anything I have written? -- PBS (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Navbox

Would this article benefit from a navbox at the bottom or on the side linking to related concepts and prominent examples? Something along the lines of the little blue box at the end of Pseudoscience (view) would be my vote, but I would like to hear some opinions before I put in the work. Suggestions for articles to be included would also be nice. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary to link to related concepts, and linking this to "prominent examples" other than the Holocaust, which in a navbox would be without the qualifications that appear in the text, would in my opinion be open to POV abuse. -- PBS (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also

Verbal why revert the whole edit if you think that some of the links should not be there? There are far too many links in the section so please explain in detail why you reverted the whole edit. -- PBS (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you didn't say which were removed based on your opinion, and which were removed because they already appear. Feel free to remove those that already appear. In future it might be better if you discuss first. Verbal chat 06:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are just as capable as me of discerning which ones are already in the article. Please only revert those you think should remain in the article.-- PBS (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned it out in two edits - that was easy. No particular objection to any of them going back in, but it would be nice to talk about it here. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Three that I removed and you left are: Anti-intellectualism, Disinformation, Dunning–Kruger effect. I do not see a direct link between this topic and the first two and the last, while it's name could be seen as encompassing this subject, the content is much more about black propaganda and interstate rivalry. -- PBS (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead July 2010

From my talk page:

Regarding this reversion, is it actually true that "most denialism is historical denialism not scientific denialism"? Honest question, though I'm not even sure if it's an answerable question, really. Quantification would prove...difficult.

In any case, I think there might be a workable middle ground. Using the Specter book review seems like a weak source compared to the academic work I had cited (which is also used later, in more detail, in the article). If you took out specific references to "scientific consensus", I think the description works well for historical denialism as well. I'd suggest:

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical arguments to falsely produce the appearance of legitimate academic debate regarding subjects on which a consensus exists in the relevant academic field, with the ultimate goal of rejecting the established consensus.<ref name=Diethelm/>

Perhaps it's a bit wordy, but I think it's more explanatory. What do you think? — Scientizzle 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My major concern and the reason why I reverted was because the altered wording specifically said "legitimate academic debate regarding subjects on which a scientific consensus exists" (my emphasis), while the current wording gives roughly equal balance to both.

BTW the reason I think that there is more in the history area is because we are dealing with nationalism and ethnicity, and the vitriol that surround that is far grater than any scientific debate. But the point I would make is that I do not think that the current lead overemphasize either historical or scientific denialism.

The problem I have with your definition is that first of all it is a synthesis, and a tautology "regarding subjects on which a consensus exists" if there is a consensus then there no opposing view so there can not be denial. It is also very specific, denial can take many other forms than "just employment of rhetorical arguments" see for example the list that Evans supplies that Irving used, and that does not include out and out forgery although Irving did use a crudely forged document by the Nazis to inflate the number of dead from the Dresden bombings from the real figure to ten times a much by concatenating a zero on the end of the TB 47 police report of the numbers (turning the number from the now accepted mnimum of 20,204 to 202,040). Dresden is also an example of part of this process because one thread of Holocaust denial is comparative morality: "Yes the Nazis committed genocide, BUT so did the Allies dropping bombs of defenceless German civilians and dropping those unnecessary atom-bombs when the war was already over". "Proving" that 202,040 died in Dresden is part of this denialist process. Therefor I think "Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth" is more accurate than you suggested alternative.

It is not that I think the lead is perfect just I think it is better than the alternative so far suggested. I would however like the information in the first paragraph of the "Orthodoxy and heterodoxy" section up into the first paragraph of the lead. -- PBS (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The definition at Wiktionary: "Denialism describes the position of those who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly" is much less of skewed and tautological than those being advanced here (based on a book review) and other from a "viewpoint". They are both opinionated and unencyclopedic. Editors here seem to have gotten carried away with their battle cries and lost sight of the fact that we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would only object to the use of the plural in noting that one editor, Freakshownerd, has manifestly got carried away with battle cries: personal attacks and argumentation in support of fringe positions (see above section, where Freakshownerd supports Peter Duesberg's claims concerning HIV drugs). This is indeed an encyclopaedia, not a venue for advocacy of fringe positions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem with the Wiki dictionary definition is that it does not follow a survey of usage as would the OED if it were to include the word. For example who says that denialism "seek[s] to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly". It is quite possible for someone to be involved in denialism and not be seeking to "influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly" as they may have other motives (a financial book deal for example). -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of denialism where influencing policy processes and outcomes isn't involved? This seems to me to be a critical component of what denialism means and I would expect to find that noted in multiple sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends what is being described as denialism. For every genocide and alleged genocide (see genocides in history) there are people who deny that it was a genocide. Without going into details (I wrote a detailed reply but it was so long I will not put it here), Genocide has a very precise legal meaning (see the Bosnian Genocide Case) and many academic definitions so often people can agree that crimes against humanity were committed (actus reus) but not the mens rea. It does not stop those who advocate that an event was a genocide claiming those who dispute it for whatever reason are genocide denialists. There are even laws that making claims that certain genocide were not genocide a criminal offence in some countries (see Historical revisionism (negationism)#Judicature) -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)