Talk:Denialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Tobacco 2 Whose ideas are these? 3 Need to be more encyclopedic 4 Pejorative 5 Lifted from my site 6 Is Denialism a Word? 7 It is a word 8 It's a Yellow word 9 Burrying hatchet 10 Possible revision to intro 11 Genuine Doubt

[edit] Tobacco

It's not mentioned in the article yet, but tobacco's one of the best examples of denialism. I've had a quick poke around the WP's articles on the subject, but it's a bit diffuse on this aspect, so bringing it together here would be good. It also provides possibly the best example of denialist exposure and ridicule, with even a Hollywood film as supporting material. Anyway, I'll try to have a poke around for material to add, but thought I'd flag this up anyway. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whose ideas are these?

Nice little essay, but where does the term and the information come from: A single source? A lecture? Someone's specific expert knowledge? Summary of a book? And would something like the non-acceptance of psi count as denialism by mainstream science (an exception to the perception that denialism is always anti-rational, anti-science)? -- Seejyb 22:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to be more encyclopedic

As Seejyb says, the article reads like an essay at present, and is overly POV. I agree that the Bush Administration is denialist on a bunch of things, notably global warming and Iraq, but presumably. I've tried to redo the intro to make it clear that we are talking about a term used in political and scientific controversy. The article should be edited further to make it more encyclopedic.JQ 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative

I'm pretty confident that this term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense - certainly that's the way I use it in relation to global warming denialists. AFAIK, denialists themselves almost always use alternative terms such as revisionist (in the case of the Holocaust), skeptic (AGW) or intelligent design theorist (evolution). Can you point to instances where the use appears favourable or neutral. Note that there's nothing wrong with using pejorative terms - as I've said I use this term myself - but we should be clear about it. JQ 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As there's been no response on this, and the intro was becoming a mess of conflicting POV, I've gone ahead and reinserted the description of the term as pejorative. JQ 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. You've managed to add a viewpoint presented as fact, not a remove it. That the term is pejorative is most definately a particular viewpoint and completely subjective. Let's just stick to saying what it is, not how particular people perceive it in the intro. FeloniousMonk 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether a term is pejorative or not is determined by usage, and is a matter of fact. Can you list any positive or neutral uses of the term. For example, are there people who call themselves "global warming denialists" as opposed to, say, "global warming skeptics"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lifted from my site

A significant quantity of this essay is lifted from my site.

Here is my post on denialism http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html

As you can see, my five criteria are more or less identical, including subdivisions.

I would hope that I be given some attribution if my list is going to be used. While these ideas aren't unique to me, this 5-point classification was my minor innovation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quitter (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Added as a source in the article. FeloniousMonk 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Denialism a Word?

I have searched various dictonaries and can't find the word at all. Should Wikipedia be coining new words when others do the job? It is badly written and confusing, classing Holocaust denial wth scientists who question the anthropogenc global warming hypothesis, for example. It gives a slanted viewpoint, so is politcally biased, and therefore unworthy of Wiki inclusion. Peterrhyslewis 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is a word

Denialism is a word that's becoming very popular especially among science bloggers dealing with HIV/AIDS denialism, holcaust denial, evolution/creationism debates, microbial basis of disease denial etc.

The purpose isn't to "lump" people together and essentially create a guilt-by association attack. The point is to describe a set of techniques used by people who have no scientific or factual basis for their claims to sow confusion and doubt into a field of inquiry. It can be done for personal, political, religious or financial reasons.

The technique appears to have been first adopted by cigarette companies to sow confusion about the tobacco/cancer link. See http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 for more tying the history of the technique to the tobacco companies.

By identifying the techniques by which people with no data and no facts can create controversy and confusion about topics on which there is a broad consensus, the hope is to prevent anti-scientific and anti-intellectual arguments from convincing people to believe in things which are obviously falsifiable. Holocaust denial is good example of this, but so is the denial of the link between HIV and AIDS. They use the same tactics to create confusion. Hence scientists and sciencebloggers have begun to recognize the phenomena of denialism in their interactions with those who use emotionally appealing or confusing arguments to cast doubt on well-established and supported theories. Search the scienceblog network for examples http://scienceblogs.com. quitter 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's a Yellow word

Thanks to the author for opening the epistemological can of worms.

I believe this whole article is simply well-disguised original research. A few POV blogs does not count as reliable resource, and the existence of this article would seems to amplify "anti-denialism" propaganda, closing a self-justifying loop. The problem with "denialism" as a concept, and as an encyclopedic entry, is that it promotes poisoning the well: denouncing a view as denialism or its proponent as a denialist has the effect of leading to judgement before inquiry. Using User:Quitter's own words against him:

Hence scientists and sciencebloggers have begun to recognize the phenomena of denialism in their interactions with those who use emotionally appealing or confusing arguments to cast doubt on well-established and supported theories.

we see this very kind of thinking. "Well-established" might mean theories which actually are demonstratable beyond reasonable doubt, or it might mean uncontested propaganda. Which is which?

• Global warming is climatological / recent trend
• AIDS is caused by/not caused by HIV
• Holocaust was a systematic / happenstance killing of 6 / 2 million Jews
• Evolution versus ... whatever

CC:ing AfD page

--Otheus 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author and you're welcome. Unless you have a specific objection and not a general gripe I see no reason for the dispute tag. Feel free to add any sources you feel are missing. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave several specific objections. Others (see above) have given similar objections. You answered one. Since there are no RS here, and since you are the author, I propose YOU add real sources.

BTW, since you seem to be confused, read WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience, which says "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Much Denialism, particularly Global Warming denialism, Evolution denialism, and AIDS denialism, is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. So there's your answer. FeloniousMonk 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. The problem is that attributing this term to someone is essentially an ad hominem attack. I sense an edit war brewing. Please don't WP:OWN this article. --Otheus 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:ATT. FeloniousMonk 05:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What am I missing? You have two citations: First is a self-published blog. Strike one. Two is an article that does not even use the word denialism, and even if it did, this person is an unlikely an authority on such a subject. So.... what am I missing? --Otheus 05:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to bother try finding and adding the sources you seem to think the article lacks, or just keep griping about it? What is it, Musical Tags night? Or is it Pin the Tag on the Article until you find one that sticks? Did actually trying to improve the article ever occur to you instead of griping and futzing about with tags? FeloniousMonk 05:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've managed find and add 4 sources in less than 30 minutes, including articles from The New Yorker and The Nation. Not too bad for a topic that is supposedly a "neologism" and an article covering it that was alleged by you to be "original research"... I see you've yet to add any. Why is that? FeloniousMonk 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you! The reason I didn't add anything is because all I could come up with was uses of the neologism, and not any actual discussions of the term itself. Well, except for one Edwin Cameron, a computer scientist working on AIDS awareness in Africa. --Otheus

That would all hinge on what you consider a neologism I suppose. After the term is used in the mainstream media to describe a specific behavior, as in the New Yorker article, its inclusion in the project and how it is described here is no longer an issue per WP:ATT. FeloniousMonk 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good, you came across a non-protected version of the NewYorker article. Excellent. Good work! --Otheus 06:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to this page on the Denial disambiguation prelude to that article. See here. See! I'm doing something constructive! --Otheus 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burrying hatchet

Hey, FM, I removed the tag. I still think your missing my overall point, but I've not been getting much sleep lately, so I'm going to take a few days off from this article and come back to it with hopefully a clear mind. Happy editing! --Otheus

[edit] Possible revision to intro

I share some (though not all) of the concerns that have been raised about the way the article is written. It seems to me that a good model for an article like this is the article on Political correctness. I've drafted an intro modelled on the intro for PC

Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups interest groups or individuals who reject propositions that are, or are claimed to be, strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence, and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. The term has been used in relation to holocaust denial, AIDS reappraisal,^{[1][2][3][4][5]} global warming denial,^[6] and the creation-evolution controversy.

The term "denialism" is normally used in a pejorative sense, since it carries the implication that the person or group concerned is denying evident truths (here I'd link to some refs above, all of which are critical of those labelled as denialists). Those described as denialists often use such terms as revisionist, skeptic or dissident in describing their own position.

If people like the general approach (or if no one objects), I'll be bold and put this intro in place of the existing one. If not, I'm happy to discuss a bit in the talk section.JQ 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genuine Doubt

I have deleted global warming as a term to which denialism is attached, since it is clear from the global warming articles that this a topic disputed by many eminent scientists. Scepticism about the theory of global warming cannot and should not be classed with holocaust denialism. Indeed, further on in the current article, it is not included. My deletion therefore removes the contradiction. Peterlewis 08:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody keeps reverting this change. Peter seems to be correct that GW is a controversy that should not be classed with holocaust denialism. However, the reverter does not contribute to this discussion. That editor seems to be edit-warring. 68.89.149.2 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)