Talk:Denialism/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)
 * What distinguishes "denial" and "denier" from "denialism" and "denialist"? It looks like a distinction without a difference to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.216.222 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

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)

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, 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)

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

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,  global warming denial, 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)

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)
 * It's not the skepticism about global warming to which denialism is attached. It's the campaign by ExxonMobil et al. to spread disinformation. The climate change denial article discusses this in depth, specifically addressing the difference between denial and skepticism. Ben Hocking (talk 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it's well-sourced. JoshuaZ 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto protocol
Wasn't it the Clinton administration who decided not to submit the Kyoto Protocol? That's what the Kyoto Protocol page says. The science adviser stuff is accurate, if not a sure-fire way of drawing NPOV complaints, however. Ben Hocking (talk 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bush has had the ability to submit it ever since taking office but has chosen not to. Clinton didn't stack the advisory ranks the way Bush has. There are plenty of sources for that point to fend off any POV attempts to whitewash the article of it. Odd nature 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that Bush has stacked the advisory ranks in a very unpalatable way. However, to mention that Bush did not submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification without mentioning that Clinton didn't submit it, either, seems misleading to me. There are so many other instances of denialism in the Bush White House, and this particular instance is debatable, IMO. I haven't read your sources, but do they specifically mention his failure to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification? If he had submitted it, do you think the Republican congress would have approved it? Ben Hocking (talk 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Creation-evolution controversy"
I removed the link to this in the first paragraph. The insinuation that those taking the non-Richard Dawkins side in the controversy are 'denialists' has no source. Still, just because several bloggers and Op-Ed columnists have made the connection does not neccesarily mean that it must be mentioned in the article. 'Denialism' implies a bad-faith, ideologically based motivation that Michael Behe and other advocates don't have. The same is true for those inside the global warming controversy. Revolutionaryluddite 01:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Based off arguments I have seen in Climate change denial, this seems to be the correct move. I'm not sure that Michael Behe doesn't have an bad-faith, ideologically based motivation, but I'm certainly not sure that he does, either. Ben Hocking (talk 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Behe's bad faith was already aired at the Dover trial and is now a matter of public record. And we already have another notable source, the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" report, The dangers of creationism in education making the connection between denialism and creationism: I have literally a dozen other equally weighty sources making the same claim, so it's been returned to the article. FeloniousMonk 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationism, as defined by its article, is a blanket term including theistic evolution, young earth creationism, gap creationism, Intelligent Design. If you want to include reliable sources describing ID as 'denial' or 'denialism', than go ahead. But ID, 'creationism', and the 'creation-evolution controversy' are not synoymns. As far as Behe goes, I've reviewed his recent court case and the notion that he has recanted his views or admitted that his views are based on his personal biases is news to me. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the validity of his arguements. Also, just because he is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he is a 'denialist'. Revolutionaryluddite 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Felonious, the article you cited said: "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe." and "We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up" and "Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights." and "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy." This is... well, incredible. There's a war on, and people like me have to pick a side. So, by their own mere existence, people who disagree with even a part of strict, non-theistic evolution is a danger to Western civilization. This would be funny in a 'Springtime for Hitler' sort of way, if the authors didn't honestly believe this. They also said "Alongside these different movements that come together under the heading of strict creationism, we also find so-called progressive creationism, which does not totally reject evolution but argues that creation necessarily involved successive divine interventions." So even some theistic evolutionists are 'evolution deniers'... Look, I agree that strict creationism up and including some types of Intelligent Design are 'in denial' over evolution, but the correlation should sourced to scientists. Revolutionaryluddite 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're way off base and speaking from personal opinion. Let's just stick to what the sources say, and the source FM added says: "While the most radical creationists adhere to a crude denialism by completely denying the scientific advances and discoveries concerning the evolution of species, other creationist movements proclaim themselves scientific, a claim that is completely contradictory." Clearly this supports the passage in the article that reads: "The term has been used in relation to 'holocaust denial', 'AIDS reappraisal', and 'climate change denial' and the creation-evolution controversy." Odd nature 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I give up. I accept that a partisan political statement by a French socialist on the danger posed by Christian fundamentalism based in America to Western democracy is a reasonable source. Revolutionaryluddite 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Odd nature: There's a difference between "other creationist movements" and "all other creationist movements". Ben Hocking (talk 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"neologism"
The term "denialism" is a neologism; this cannot be disputed. The fact that it is should be mentioned the article. This does not necessarily imply that the term isn't worthy of having its own article in the first place. (I've reviewed Avoid_neologisms and I'm still not sure about that point.) Revolutionaryluddite 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ben Hocking (talk 16:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm adding back that neologism comment because it was not addressed here. From that article: "The term "e-mail", as used today, is an example of a neologism." Unless there's evidence that the term has been around longer than "e-mail", it seems clear to me that it's a neologism. Why the disagreement about this? Ben Hocking (talk 18:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. Whether or not it is a neologism hinges on whether it is a recently coined term, and 'denialism' was being used when I was a student 30 years ago. Here's a scholarly source using it 11 years ago: New Perspectives on the Holocaust: A guide for teachers and scholars It's not a neologism. FeloniousMonk 13:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, but I notice that Word, OO.o Writer, and Firefox all underline the word as a misspelling. Also, how long do you think the term "e-mail" has been around? I was using it 20 years ago, and I know I wasn't the first. Ben Hocking (talk 13:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How anyone can claim 20 years is recent is beyond me: It's not. Ten years is not even recent. Five, maybe, but that's pushing it. Whether a word is included in spellcheckers is not a definitive determination of either whether it is recent or a neologism; nor is it a standard adopted by Wikipedia. We have a reliable source that using the term 11 years ago: It's not recent hence it can not be a neologism. FeloniousMonk 14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How anyone can claim 20 years is not recent is beyond me. Whippersnapper. I do acknowledge that spellcheckers are not definitive (otherwise neighbourhood is a neologism/misspelling), but was merely presenting it as an additional bit of information. If Wikipedia decides that 10 years is a cutoff for what makes something a neologism, then e-mail needs to be taken out of the neologism article. Agreed? Ben Hocking (talk 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought of 'e-mail' as a neologism since 1990. Let's keep in mind that your example, e-mail, is only identified as a neologism at the neologism article not its own, and then without context. The neologism article is ambiguous as whether e-mail is still considered a neologism, something that should be corrected. FeloniousMonk 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A fair argument. I don't really feel that strongly about using the word neologism (although I still think it is one &mdash; our difference of opinion mainly stemming from what "recent" means). I am interested in what RL thinks since I believe he was the one who added it in the first place. Ben Hocking (talk 15:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When was the earliest use of the term 'denialism' to refer to climate change denial, climate change skepticism, Intelligent Design, and irreducible complexity? I know that 'denial' and 'denialist' have long been used to describe those that deny the deaths of innocent people, but the extention of the 'denial' terminology to those with arguable good-faith/bad-faith intentions seems like a creation of the loser generation. (It's just the kind of thing we would come up with.) Revolutionaryluddite 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a term that's <10 years old and has been in regular use for even less time is 'recent'. Revolutionaryluddite 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I found a 2001 reference for climate change denial
 * More importantly, I don't think the date that a particular term gets applied to X determines whether that term itself is a neologism or not. Ben Hocking (talk 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but the fact that a term has only been used in the past several years and gained rapid popularity even more recently makes it arguable. Revolutionaryluddite 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Has it gained rapid popularity? 'Cause I seem to have missed that. ;) (See also a word that is definitely not a neologism: poikilotherm.) Ben Hocking (talk 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Rapid' is not quite the right word. Revolutionaryluddite 17:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't think the date that a particular term gets applied to X determines whether that term itself is a neologism or not."
 * What? Please. You're trying to redefine 'neologism' now in order to make it fit.
 * Neologism: "A neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") — often to apply to new concepts, to synthesize pre-existing concepts, or to make older terminology sound more contemporary.
 * 3 + dictionaries define Neologism as: 1) "a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase. 2) "A new word, expression, or usage." 3) "a newly invented word or phrase."
 * A 1996 source has been provided showing it used in this context 11 years ago. It's clearly not new and you're wasting your time and ours arguing that it is. Odd nature 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked when 'denialism' was first used in its current application and when did it gain it's current popularity. I consider this important. Revolutionaryluddite 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should we jump through any additional hoops when the source that has been provided sufficiently and conclusively demonstrates that by no stretch of the dictionary or imagination the term is new? The proof is right here on the page that it was being used in this context 11 years ago. You're welcome to waste your time but don't demand the rest of us to. Odd nature 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. Anyway, I have no intention whatsoever to start an edit war over the passing use of a single word. Revolutionaryluddite 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the author of that quote, Odd nature, you're completely misinterpreting what I wrote. In no way does that quote help make the term 'neologism' "fit". The key word there is "don't". I'm arguing the same thing you are in that particular quote. (I still disagree with what "recent" means, but that's a separate argument, and I don't feel particularly strongly about it.) Ben Hocking (talk 17:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I misinterpreted you I apologize. Odd nature 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

'Ideological denialism'
I'm planning to include forms of 'denial' based on left-wing extremism-- Katyn massacre, Bosnian Genocide, the killing fields, human rights violations by Saddam Hussein-- as well as 'denial' based on anarcho-capitalism-- climate change denial, et cetera. Otherwise, I think that the section looks very good right now. Revolutionaryluddite 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of those appear to be more political rather than ideological. Also, stop trying to remove dilute and downplay the ideological denialism that shows up in the form of creationism. We going to need to be circumspect about your additions to this section and whether they are actually supported by your sources. Odd nature 17:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I give up. If the article must say that every single thing under the blanket term creationism-- from young earth creationism to theistic evolution-- is 'ideological denialism' caused by "fanatical personal beliefs" such as "religious" belief, than it will say that. Revolutionaryluddite 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Odd nature: I think you should really assume good faith with RL. I really feel that he has earned it. If you have a problem with a specific edit of his then discuss it with him. You might be surprised to find yourself agreeing with him. Read the article on theistic evolution &mdash; especially the first paragraph. To me, at least, it is clearly not a form of denialism. Now, if theistic evolution is a form of creationism (something I'm still having a hard time accepting), then by extension not all forms of creationism are denialism. Ben Hocking (talk 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia article, theistic evolution is "Part of the series on Creationism" and it is also within "Category:Creationism"; the word itself is mentioned over a dozen times in the article's body text. Theistic evolution is also mentioned several times in the article 'History of creationism'. Revolutionaryluddite 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that the article should refer individually to the specific types of creationism which obvuscate/trivialize evolution in a way that makes it 'denial'. Sources cited for the article should be from scientists-- not lawyers, not bloggers, not politicans. This is science; there are no 'good buys' and 'bad guys' in science. Revolutionaryluddite 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Theistic evolution is a funny one: It's on the borderline of being creationism, but evolution is fully accepted, so it could go either way. It's convenient to consider it creationism for purposes of an encyclopædia, though, as the parts relating to God aren't really a scientific viewpoint, but theology. Still, the existence of one borderline group - heretics to members of the main group - that don't exhibit denial does not change the reality that all the rest is denial. Adam Cuerden talk 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a theistic evolutionist myself, I can't even begin to understand how it can be lumped together with young earth creationism, intelligent design, and the rest as 'evolution denial'. I just don't know. It would be like placing Christian Democracy alongside fascism, National Socialism, Conservatism, and Peronism in a category called 'right-wing ideologies'. The notion that creationism and evolution are black-white opposites is contradicted by the article Creation-evolution_controversy, which describes a spectrum with young earth creationism on one end and metaphysical naturalism at the other. The article also states that theistic evolution is a form of creationism. In any rate, I've given up arguing this since there's a clear consensus against my position. Revolutionaryluddite 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As a former theistic evolutionist myself, I can't even being to understand how it can be lumped together with creationism, despite what the article says. Ben Hocking (talk 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what they say. I'm trying to meet Wikipedia's editorial majority half-way. Revolutionaryluddite 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

After I edited the section, it said this:

Fanatical personal belief in socio-political ideologies such as nationalism, Marxist-Leninism, and militant social progressivism as well as religious extremism that their holders believe conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or historical evidence can drive them to engage in personal forms of denial to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with opposing evidence. Russian neo-nationalism and neo-Nazism, far-left Palestinian nationalism, and Islamism have been closely linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Some social activist groups such as ACT-UP of San Francisco have expressed support for AIDS denialism; one survey of the participants of interracial gay pride parades in "San Francisco, Detroit, Oakland, and Baltimore" found that "33% believed that HIV does not cause AIDS". Some Islamic fundamentalist scholars have condemned evolution and forms of creationism such as theistic evolution. Dr. Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, stated that "Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another." Scholars in the United Arab Emirates have called evolution “a Jewish-Darwinist theory that conflicts with the truth about humans and with Islamic principles".

What words/phrases/sentences are being objected to, and why? I'm not advocating that a single word I used should be in the article-- I've given up editing anything related to denialism-- I would just like to know. Revolutionaryluddite 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I'm disengaging given that I'm alone in my position. Revolutionaryluddite 01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for my part I don't really have strong feelings about what you wrote either way. I think they're somewhat relevant, but probably more relevant in the the articles discussing those specific forms of denialism. I do share your curiosity about what Odd nature finds problematic here. Odd nature? Ben Hocking (talk 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To begin with, it reads like OR. It appears that RL is the one linking denialism with political ideologies, not the sources.  Guettarda 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And do you think the best way to fix what you assume to be WP:OR is (1) by deletion or (2) by asking for references and/or explaining why it seems like OR? Ben Hocking (talk 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of getting back into the debate, I would like to ask: What was wrong with the references listed? If they were incomplete, why not add more/better ones instead of deleting the text wholesale? Finally, what makes the current wording "Fanatical personal beliefs, such as religious and socio-political ideologies like creationism" any less 'original research' given that it labels all of creationism-- from geocentrism to theistic evolution-- as 'denialist' and then implies that organized religion in general is responsible for this 'denialism' while only citing this-- -- as support? Revolutionaryluddite 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The cited article mentions 'religion' in three paragraphs:


 * "Similarly, some members of the religious right warm to the notion that AIDS is caused by a licentious lifestyle rather than a virus (although they could argue that a licentious lifestyle increases the risk of contracting the virus.)


 * Hence we see something of an unusual alliance between the right and the left, strangely reminiscent of the alliance formed to attack the theory of evolution. So it should come as no surprise that some leading lights of anti-evolution Intelligent Design theory, including ID godfather Phillip Johnson and Moonie Jonathan Wells, have joined the AIDS denialist camp.


 * Indeed, Johnson has even co-authored denialist papers with Kary Mullis, though one has to wonder how he squares Mullis's admittedly bohemian lifestyle - Mullis has reportedly slept with more women than the Rolling Stones and claims the inspiration for PCR came during an LSD trip - with his own hellfire Presbyterianism."


 * The author's use of the terms 'left' and 'right' seem political, not religious. Revolutionaryluddite 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fanatical personal belief in socio-political ideologies such as nationalism, Marxist-Leninism, and militant social progressivism[1] as well as religious extremism that their holders believe conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or historical evidence can drive them to engage in personal forms of denial to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with opposing evidence.
 * Supporting reference: "AIDS 'denialism' gathers strange bedfellows" (Peter McKnight), which talks about AIDS denialism uniting people like Thabo Mbeki, Peter Duesberg, the Foo Fighters, ACT-UP, Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells. The author says nothing about "fanatical personal beliefs".  To draw such a conclusion from that article is, at best, a new synthesis beyond what the author meant.  And what is "militant social progressivism" supposed to be?  If you're going to use a terribly POV-sounding term like that, it would need to be strongly supported by references.


 * Russian neo-nationalism [2] [3] and neo-Nazism, far-left Palestinian nationalism [4], and Islamism [5] have been closely linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
 * Supporting refs: "State of Hate" (Matthews & Nemtsova; MSNBC), "The Reemergence of Political Anti-Semitism in Russia" (ADL), "Was Abu Mazen a Holocaust Denier?" (Brynn Malone; HNN) and "Palestinian Holocaust Denial" (Reuven Paz). The Matthews & Nemtsova article do not link Russian nationalism with Holocaust denial, nor does it appear to deal with anti-Semitism.  The ADL article does address anti-Semitism, but does not link it to Holocaust denial.  Malone's collection of articles does address the question of whether Abbas was a Holocaust denier, and some of them touch on motivation (In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv, Abbas tried to frame the issue in terms of realpolitik).  There is nothing in the reference that explicitly connects "far-left Palestinian nationalism" (whatever that is) with Holocaust denial.  Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial, and it does so in a broader historical context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world.  It does not connect Holocaust denial with "fanatical personal beliefs"; rather, it presents it in a context of realpolitik.  The references do not address anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, let alone link them to Holocaust denialism.


 * Some social activist groups such as ACT-UP of San Francisco have expressed support for AIDS denialism; one survey of the participants of interracial gay pride parades in "San Francisco, Detroit, Oakland, and Baltimore" found that "33% believed that HIV does not cause AIDS". [6]
 * Supporting ref: "Mistrust and conspriacy beliefs about HIV/AIDS among participants in minority gray pride events" (Hutchinson et al.) In this case, both statements are supported by references (the ACT UP reference by the Peter McKnight reference above, which for some reason is omitted here).  The juxtaposition though, is misleading.  ACT UP/SF is a denialist organisation (as the ACT UP article documents), but the issue of motivation is not supported by the references.  By juxtaposing it with the Hutchinson et al. reference, you are suggesting that its activism is responsible for the amazingly high levels of belief in AIDS denialism among the participants in these Pride events.  Not only is there no support for this idea, there are also better-established alternative explanations - denialist beliefs in higher in minorities and in those who feel disempowered.  Implying a connection to ideology is not only unsupported by the references, it is also unnecessary, since basic models of denialism would lead on to expect higher levels of denialist beliefs in a sample drawn from a minority population (gays), and dominated by ethnic minorities (only 14% were white).


 * Some Islamic fundamentalist scholars have condemned evolution and forms of creationism such as theistic evolution. Dr. Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, stated that "Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another."[7] Scholars in the United Arab Emirates have called evolution “a Jewish-Darwinist theory that conflicts with the truth about humans and with Islamic principles".[8]
 * Supporting references: "Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools" (Guardian), "The List: The World’s Stupidest Fatwas" (Foreign PolicY). To begin with, replacing creationism with Islamic creationism is clearly POV.  The statement by Anees is self-contradictory, and is almost impossible to interpret.  The UAE reference is about Pokémon, not evolution denial.  Ok, this isn't OR, it's just an attempt to undermine the article by turning it into a joke.

So, for the most part, it's OR, and the rest appears to be either flat out misrepresentation or POV-pushing. Guettarda 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Ben Hocking (talk 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that ref [1] from above would be appropriate here, but I don't see that he's necessarily implying anything other than that these two statements are both about AIDS. That you're inferring this is natural considering the fact that it is easy to draw such a claim. He is clear in that part that he's talking about "some" social activist groups (although arguably all that ref shows is that it is "a" social activist group that has expressed support for AIDS denialism). I assume you're not claiming that ACT UP/SF isn't also a social activist group, right? (That it's also a denialist group is evident from the sentence.) I think this sentence could be rewritten as: ''

The social activist group ACT-UP of San Francisco has expressed support for AIDS denialism[1]; one survey of the participants of interracial gay pride parades in "San Francisco, Detroit, Oakland, and Baltimore" found that "33% believed that HIV does not cause AIDS". [6]'' Ben Hocking (talk 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're correct about [2] and [3], but [4] clearly mentions classic Holocaust denial:"In his thesis, Abbas wrote that the estimated number of Jews killed during World War II was “less than one million.” Abbas stated that the Zionist leadership collaborated with the Nazi regime to “facilitate the wide-spread destruction” of Jews. Abbas’ ‘research’ was later printed by a publisher located in Amman, Jordan."This sentence could therefore be re-written as:"Palestinian nationalism [4] and Islamism [5] have been closely linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (I'm not sure where the far-left part came from, other than as a balance for the far-right. I know that I've never considered "Palestinian nationalism" to be "far-left".) Ben Hocking (talk 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think he's "replacing creationism with Islamic creationism". The article is clearly discussing Islamic creationism. Given the definition of creationism in use here at Wikipedia, I think his summary of the topic is better than if he had dropped the word "Islamic". As for [8], I do not think you're assuming good faith by claiming that "it's just an attempt to undermine the article by turning it into a joke", but I agree that it doesn't really add anything to the article. I think this bit could be trimmed down to:"Some Islamic fundamentalist scholars have condemned evolution and forms of creationism such as theistic evolution. Dr. Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, stated that 'Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.'[7]" Ben Hocking (talk 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Other than his first sentence (which is more WP:SYN than WP:OR), I think that is an unfair representation of his effort. RL has shown himself to be open-minded to discussion and willing to make compromises. That he has a different POV than you (and me) is not the same thing as saying that he is POV-pushing. Ben Hocking (talk 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the sources, and Guettarda was right, they don't support the content he attached them to. At all. So Guettarda accurately characterized those edits from what I've seen. I'm only sorry that I missed them yesterday and it took an admin to find the problem. Relying upon personal opinion rather than sources has been a recurring problem with this particular editor. Odd nature 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * After correcting for the problems Guettarda pointed out (but not the ones that I did not think were problems), I was able to whittle it down to:"Palestinian nationalism, and Islamism have been closely linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The social activist group ACT-UP of San Francisco has expressed support for AIDS denialism ; one survey of the participants of interracial gay pride parades in 'San Francisco, Detroit, Oakland, and Baltimore' found that '33% believed that HIV does not cause AIDS'. Some Islamic fundamentalist scholars have condemned evolution and forms of creationism such as theistic evolution. Dr. Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, stated that 'Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.' Scholars in the United Arab Emirates have called evolution “a Jewish-Darwinist theory that conflicts with the truth about humans and with Islamic principles'."What are the thoughts on this version? Ben Hocking (talk 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that there's a clear editorial consensus that any and all forms of creationism-- explicitly including theistic evolution and progressive creationism-- should be listed as 'ideological denialism', the section should definately stay as it is or an 'edit war' might be set off. Revolutionaryluddite 23:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, with regards to "explicitly including theistic evolution", I don't think I've seen a single editor say that, and I've said the opposite, so there's definitely not consensus. Furthermore, I don't recall seeing a single source to back up this claim. The problem, as I understand it is that there are sources that attribute denialism to creationism, without specifying whether they're including TE under that umbrella or not. I assume they're not, but that's obviously just an assumption, and hence has absolutely zero weight. Ben Hocking (talk 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At present, the 'ideological denialism' only includes one source-- which does makes that connection as I have previously commented, albeit in an ambiguous way. Also, the section refers to the article creation-evolution controversy-- which explicitly describes theistic evolution as creationism in a spectrum with Metaphysical_naturalism, what nearly all palentologists believe, as one pole. I don't want to argue the point because I'm sure that reliable sources can be found from Michael Shermer or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or someone else making the connection. Revolutionaryluddite 03:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's still one nagging point, which I asked about before, that I don't understand. If the references were incomplete/misapplied, why not add more/better ones or ask for more/better ones instead of deleting the text wholesale without explanation? Revolutionaryluddite 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I'm going to stop posting as per my '23:57' comment. Revolutionaryluddite 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (What the heck does '23:57' mean? Is it military time based on Greenwich Time?)
 * It is Coordinated Universal Time, which is very nearly, but not quite, like military time based on Greenwich Time. Ben Hocking (talk 01:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Revolutionaryluddite 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (That's Wikipedia for you. Promoting internationalism every tiny step by tiny step. Sorry, but I'll never, ever spell 'color' with a 'u'.)

Wikipedia articles aren't random collections of information. They are supposed to provide a balanced report of the majority opinion, with minority views included (without undue weight being given to minority views). And they need to be supported by appropriate sources. This section of the article is about "ideological denialism".

Ben wrote:
 * Agreed that ref [1] from above would be appropriate here, but I don't see that he's necessarily implying anything other than that these two statements are both about AIDS. That you're inferring this is natural considering the fact that it is easy to draw such a claim. He is clear in that part that he's talking about "some" social activist groups (although arguably all that ref shows is that it is "a" social activist group that has expressed support for AIDS denialism). I assume you're not claiming that ACT UP/SF isn't also a social activist group, right? (That it's also a denialist group is evident from the sentence.) I think this sentence could be rewritten as:


 * The social activist group ACT-UP of San Francisco has expressed support for AIDS denialism[1]; one survey of the participants of interracial gay pride parades in "San Francisco, Detroit, Oakland, and Baltimore" found that "33% believed that HIV does not cause AIDS".

The fundamental issue here isn't whether ACT/SF can be described as a denialist organisation, or whether it should be described as a social activist group. The issues are rather (i) whether we can call it an ideologically motivated denialist group, and (ii) whether it's a notable example (i.e., whether its inclusion in the section is in keeping with the undue weight provision of the NPOV policy).

With regards (i), the McKnight article said:
 * Some leftist AIDS activist groups, including ACT UP San Francisco and Toronto-based HEAL, have taken to promoting AIDS denialism, either because they believe the HIV-AIDS connection is a sinister plot by avaricious drug companies or because denying that HIV causes AIDS gives some hope to those who are infected.

One could tenuously make the claim of this being "ideologically driven denialism", but it would be pretty shaky. After all, McKnight is only speculating. With regards to (ii), since the connection is so weak, it isn't appropriate to use it to illustrate the general phenomenon.

With regards to the re-write, these are two unconnected ideas. Making the connection implicitly is misleading. As Ben himself said: "this is natural considering the fact that it is easy to draw such a claim". Easy, yes, but totally devoid of any supporting evidence. Taking two unconnected ideas and drawing a connection between them is the sort of thing that we are not allowed to do. To make matters worse, as I said before, existing studies would allow you to predict that a group like this would be more prone to believe denialist theories, so making the connection is actually misleading. Thus, this is not only unacceptable per Wikipedia policy, it's also dishonest.

Ben wrote:
 * You're correct about [2] and [3], but [4] clearly mentions classic Holocaust denial:


 * In his thesis, Abbas wrote that the estimated number of Jews killed during World War II was “less than one million.” Abbas stated that the Zionist leadership collaborated with the Nazi regime to “facilitate the wide-spread destruction” of Jews. Abbas’ ‘research’ was later printed by a publisher located in Amman, Jordan.


 * This sentence could therefore be re-written as:


 * Palestinian nationalism [4] and Islamism [5] have been closely linked to holocaust denial and the recycling of disproven anti-Semitic conspiracy theories such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


 * (I'm not sure where the far-left part came from, other than as a balance for the far-right. I know that I've never considered "Palestinian nationalism" to be "far-left".)

As I said before: 'Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial, and it does so in a broader historical context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. It does not connect Holocaust denial with "fanatical personal beliefs"; rather, it presents it in a context of realpolitik. The references do not address anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, let alone link them to Holocaust denialism.'

So no, the references have not "closely linked" Palestinian nationalism and Islamism with Holocaust denial. Using references to say things that they don't say is dishonest reporting. Sure, one could "read between the lines" and come to a conclusion something like this, but that isn't what the articles say. They don't talk about "Palestinian nationalism", they talk about one person, Abbas (and the conclusions about his denialism are as clear as mud). The Paz article don't talk about "Islamism" - in fact, it traces Arab Holocaust denialism to a French communist.

Finally, Ben wrote:
 * I'm not sure why you think he's "replacing creationism with Islamic creationism". The article is clearly discussing Islamic creationism. Given the definition of creationism in use here at Wikipedia, I think his summary of the topic is better than if he had dropped the word "Islamic". As for [8], I do not think you're assuming good faith by claiming that "it's just an attempt to undermine the article by turning it into a joke", but I agree that it doesn't really add anything to the article. I think this bit could be trimmed down to:


 * Some Islamic fundamentalist scholars have condemned evolution and forms of creationism such as theistic evolution. Dr. Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, stated that "Muslims interpret the world through both the Koran and what is tangible and seen. There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another."[7]

I am perplexed by Ben's statement: ''I'm not sure why you think he's "replacing creationism with Islamic creationism". The article is clearly discussing Islamic creationism.'' - RL's proposed change removes the existing mention of creationism, and adds in its place a very poor mention of Islamic creationism. So no, as it stands, as it has stood for a while, the article does not discuss Islamic creationism. Only RL's proposed version discusses Islamic creationism.

Islamic creationism has recieved far less attention than Christian creationism or Jewish creationism. Per the undue weight provision of NPOV, if we discuss creationist denialism, we should start with the most vociferous kind. Then, if we have adequate references, we could add Jewish and Islamic creationism. It is not ok to gut the section of its existing mention of creationist denialism and replace it with a Pokémon-related reference. When someone who has vociferously opposed connecting creationism with denialism replaces existing mention with Muslims complaining about Pokémon...I'd call it clever, but it's still POV-pushing. Guettarda 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary Luddite wrote:
 * There's still one nagging point, which I asked about before, that I don't understand. If the references were incomplete/misapplied, why not add more/better ones or ask for more/better ones instead of deleting the text wholesale without explanation?

I did explain why I deleted the text. I explained at great length. You added material which is not supported by sources. Your additions violate fundamental Wikipedia policies. You insert misleading information into a article, dishonestly attributing it to references which say no such thing, and then you complain when it's removed? WTF? Guettarda 06:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For the reasons I stated before, I'm not going to post a response to the allegations as per WP:DR. But I do want to say that the stamtement There's still one nagging point, which I asked about before, that I don't understand. If the references were incomplete/misapplied, why not add more/better ones or ask for more/better ones instead of deleting the text wholesale without explanation? was not directed to you specifically. I should have made this clear, and I apologize. Revolutionaryluddite 07:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Guettarda wrote: "As I said before: Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial, and it does so in a broader historical context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. It does not connect Holocaust denial with "fanatical personal beliefs"; rather, it presents it in a context of realpolitik. The references do not address anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, let alone link them to Holocaust denialism.". Yes, you said it before, but you're wrong. In addition to being in the title itself, I gave you chapter and verse (and you even repeated) of at least one place where the Malone article explicitly deals with Holocaust Denial in the article. You do realize that saying that only 1 million Jews died is a form of Holocaust denial, right? Ben Hocking (talk 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben wrote:
 * Yes, you said it before, but you're wrong. In addition to being in the title itself, I gave you chapter and verse (and you even repeated) of at least one place where the Malone article explicitly deals with Holocaust Denial in the article.


 * Really? So you are saying that the Malone collection does, in fact connects " far-left Palestinian nationalism" (whatever that is) with Holocaust denial?  And you are saying that you, in fact, supplied "chapter and verse"?  That's funny, because it isn't anywhere on this page.  You quotes something which refers specifically to Abbas.  The quote applies to one person.  Really, try reading the reference, not using [Control-F] to find the word "denial".  The reference does not make the assertion you claim it does.  Guettarda 03:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at what you wrote in bold. You stated that only the Paz article deals with denialism, even after I gave you a specific example of denialism in the Malone article. You're right that it deals with Abbas and not necessarily Palestinian nationalism as a whole. As for the [Control-F] comment, I kindly suggest you step back and reconsider what you wrote &mdash; especially the tone that it conveys. Simply, the word "denial" wasn't in that quote (despite being a clear example of it), so my use of the [Control-F] key is a rather silly accusation. Do you still assert that the Malone article does not deal with Holocaust denial, or have you changed your objection to Abbas not necessarily being representative of Palestinian nationalism? Ben Hocking (talk 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "the tone that it conveys"? A little hypersensitive aren't we?  Seems an awful lot of Wikipedians are stretching the concept of civility to include a prohibition on criticism.  Perhaps Wikiworld is the Utopian ideal for the Real World.  Perhaps not.  Maybe it's simply that many Wikipedians are in denial of the cold, cruel realities of the real world.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between snark and mature criticism. If you think asking for maturity and well-reasoned discussions (preferably ones that aren't self-contradictory) instead of making oneself look foolish is the same as being hypersensitive, well, that's your prerogative. Since you've chimed in, do you actually have a point to make about the article? I assume you agree with me that the Malone article does give an example of Abbas exhibiting Holocaust denial? (I.e., that it is not true that "only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial".) Ben Hocking (talk 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ri) See my reply to you on my talk page. As far as I can tell you're pushing a point that does not have reliable sourcing.
 * BTW, would this be mature crit or snarkism: preferably ones that aren't self-contradictory? And if you seek "well-reasoned discussions", pehaps starting with your own premisses might be good.  Just a thought.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reliable source comment is helpful. The article was published by a student of George Mason University, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. However, it provides links to two sources, one being the Israel National News, and the other being the Anti-Defamation League. I honestly do not know if those sources meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and reliability or not. Yes, that comment of mine you quoted is probably closer to snarkism than mature criticism. Finally, those were not my premises, but were my adjustment to RL's statement due to the criticisms of Guetterda that I thought were valid (and I discusses which of those I thought were not valid). As it is, I do not consider this fight worth fighting as it seems clear that many people have already made up their own minds about any contributions I could possibly make. I will leave it to others to try to make this article be a good article. (Unlike RL, I do not consider it rude to not reply after stating that I'm leaving, so don't expect a reply to anything else written here.) Ben Hocking (talk 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow...Ben, what I wrote in bold was a quote from what I had said before. Are you really dumb enough to try to quote mine what I said when the full passage is right there?  Seriously?


 * Ben wrote:
 * You stated that only the Paz article deals with denialism, even after I gave you a specific example of denialism in the Malone article. You're right that it deals with Abbas and not necessarily Palestinian nationalism as a whole.


 * What I actually wrote was
 * There is nothing in the reference that explicitly connects "far-left Palestinian nationalism" (whatever that is) with Holocaust denial. Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial, and it does so in a broader historical context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. It does not connect Holocaust denial with "fanatical personal beliefs"; rather, it presents it in a context of realpolitik. The references do not address anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, let alone link them to Holocaust denialism.


 * Ben wrote:
 * As for the [Control-F] comment, I kindly suggest you step back and reconsider what you wrote — especially the tone that it conveys. Simply, the word "denial" wasn't in that quote (despite being a clear example of it), so my use of the [Control-F] key is a rather silly accusation.


 * My apologies in that regard - I thought you were simply lazy. I was wrong - given your quote mining my words and twisting what I said (despite the fact that the words are there, on this page), it's obvious that thinking you are lazy is far too charitable an explanation.


 * Ben wrote:
 * Do you still assert that the Malone article does not deal with Holocaust denial, or have you changed your objection to Abbas not necessarily being representative of Palestinian nationalism?


 * Let's see - you are asking me whether I "still" assert something I never asserted. Well, I'm done.  I have nothing to say to people whose only discussion tool is dishonestly twisting what people say.  Find someone else's time to waste.  Guettarda 02:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Guettarda. The spin he's tried to put on your comments is neither helpful nor productive. FeloniousMonk 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In re-reading Guettarda's original post, it seems that I did take him out of context. Interestingly enough, his third quoting of himself doesn't show that, but if you look at the very first time he said it, you can see that he does acknowledge that Malone's article discusses Holocaust denial as it applies to Abbas. Specifically:"Malone's collection of articles does address the question of whether Abbas was a Holocaust denier..."This does make his later claim that:"Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial, and it does so in a broader historical context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world."somewhat confusing, but I suppose you, he, and Jim understand how that second statement doesn't contradict the first. (Perhaps he meant to say "Only the Paz article deals explicitly with Holocaust denial as it fits in a broader historical context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world.") Anyways, I've acknowledged that point, and I realize that you three seem to have formed a fairly solid opinion of me, so I won't waste my time here any more, unless I have some other sin to apologize for. Ben Hocking (talk 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of getting back into the arguement, I would like to say that, Guettarda, I don't follow your logic at all. You accuse me of POV-pushing in favor of creationism by removing a blanket condemnation of all forms of creationism-- including theistic evolution-- as 'denialism' without specific sourcing. Then you accuse me of POV-pushing when I include sources for a description of certain types of creationism as 'ideological denialism'. If I was POV-pushing, then why would I POV-push against myself? Revolutionaryluddite 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Revolutionaryluddite, we've seen enough specious objections, tendentious and over-reaching proposals, and OR edits to this article from you that POV pushing is a reasonable conclusion to draw. It's also clear to me and Guettarda and others that you're not up to speed on the topic at hand and are stretching to accomplish a goal. Given this and your disruption of the Category:Denialism CFD, it's time for you to drop this and move along to another topic before it becomes truly disruptive. FeloniousMonk 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have 'moved along', 'given up', 'disingaged', or whatever you would like to call it; I merely wanted to know why I would POV-push against myself if I am POV-pushing. I understand your answer, and I will never post anything regarding 'denialism' again. Revolutionaryluddite 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (Please do not start a meta-arguement over what the nature of 'moving along' is as I intend this to be my last post.)


 * RL, you seriously think that it's proper to replace references to creationist denialism with references to creationists taking issue with Pokémon evolution? You seriously think that replacing serious text with a joke is ok?  If that's the case, then I really don't think we speak the same language.  Guettarda 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Guettarda, I do not want to argue. I am moving on. I want to disengage from this article. Revolutionaryluddite 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And how am I stopping you? You directed a question (incomprehensible as it was) at me>  I did my best to address it.  You've been talking about disengaging for days.  Do so, or do not - that's your choice; it has nothing to do with any other editor.  Guettarda 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did my best to address it. You've been talking about disengaging for days.  Do so, or do not - that's your choice; it has nothing to do with any other editor. No, it's not my choice at all; I may be placed into WP:DR by the Wikipedia administration. Also, if another user posts a comment directed to me, it would be rude for me not to respond-- even if my response is just that I do not want to respond-- as much as I want to disengage from the article. In any rate, please do not respond to this post as I want this to be my last on this article. Revolutionaryluddite 15:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (I do see your point that, when disengaging, it's certainly not necessary to have to give some kind of a 'status report' saying "I am disengaging".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revolutionaryluddite (talk • contribs)


 * Ah, I see...don't put those cookies in the room I am currently occupying, you know I have no self-control.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still a matter of choice. You can always choose to avoid the sort of behaviour that can get you into trouble. You can always choose not to respond at all, especially having said that you intend to disengage. Guettarda 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can always choose to avoid the sort of behaviour that can get you into trouble. The other editors assumed my bad faith before I even started editing this article, so your comment doesn't make any sense. You can always choose not to respond at all That's news to me. I thought that it's a violation of Wikipedia etiquette to ignore someone else's comments unless they are clearly rhetorical or so on. especially having said that you intend to disengage. I wanted to disengage. I also didn't want to ignore you-- pretend you didn't exist-- because that would be rude. I didn't want to seem like I ignored what you'd posted by not posting something back. Please assume good faith just this once, in just this one specific instance. Look, if it's just that you want the 'last word'; than that's okay. I will let you have the last word. Revolutionaryluddite 20:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "I will let you have the last word". Good, I'll do just that, since I think you need some practice letting others have the last word, and figuring out what not to reply to. :)  Guettarda 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * W.r.t. "creationism", about which several comments were made above in this section, I must agree that not all classes of theists, deists, pantheists and panentheists belong in the class generally called creationism merely because there is a belief in a creative consciousness involved in the cosmos and/or otherwise involved in its development in some way. In general, however, the word "creationism" refers to a particular type of belief in a creator, and is a view that specifically sets itself in opposition to the well verified fact of evolution. Theistic evolutionists generally do not self-identify as creationists. Given the verified highly publicized polarities (see., e.g., Creation Museum), creationism validly belongs in the category called Denialism and deserves at least some degree of mention in this article. ... Kenosis 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and cranks
Given that promotion of JFK Assassination conspiracies, Oklahoma_City_bombing, the 9/11 truth movement, and so on have hardcore ideological motivations-- such as Oliver Stone's "Do not forget your dying king" speech-- shouldn't 'conspiracy theories' be placed in the 'ideological denialism' section? As far as cranks go, shouldn't descriptions of lone wolf denialism such as the Time Cube be mentioned in the 'Methodology and Tacticts' section with context saying that they are the exception that proves the rule (There is no 'I' in 'Denialism)? Revolutionaryluddite 04:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not unless there's some reliable sources that make that connection. Odd nature 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * “I shouted out, ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’/When after all, it was you and me.” -- Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil.
 * I could probably come up with dozens of articles associating JFK assassination denailism with ideological anti-government leftism (sorry for my POV phrasing; I know that no one side is alone in this!). See and  and  and the horrifically factually flawed JFK (film). This website  discusses "Oliver Stone's portrayal of John F. Kennedy".
 * The fact that some, but certainly not all, 9/11 conspiracies have anti-Semitic bases is also well-documented. See and --(it's a pdf). Revolutionaryluddite 23:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (To be clear about my own personal biases, I'm a skeptic.)
 * Nevermind, I'm dropping the argument. Revolutionaryluddite 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there that new PLOS article on it? Adam Cuerden talk 22:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PLOS? Revolutionaryluddite 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Revolutionaryluddite 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this PLOS article, while primarily about HIV denialism, makes explicit ties to creationism, Holocaust denial, anti-psychiatric movements, and anti-vaccination movements. Adam Cuerden talk 04:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The ties are also made in a NEw Scientist article reporting on this PLoS article: "According to a new analysis, HIV denial is remarkably similar to other anti-scientific ideologies such as creationism, anti-vaccine movements and even Holocaust denial." - New Scientis, 25 August 2007, Page 4, "HIV denial" Adam Cuerden talk 04:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I may be getting confused as to sections. Eh, well. Adam Cuerden talk 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For the life of me, I do not understand why Wikipedia etiquette demands that there must be a new Talk Page thread every two weeks or less-- even if it is on the same subject as a previous thread. Then again, I don't understand a lot of things here. Revolutionaryluddite 18:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (Why is it that biographical pages can and do include speculation of their subject's sexual interests?)


 * You're no longer so new that you can invoke WP:NEWBIES, especially after all the quoting policy to others you've done recently. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I accept the fact that you and other users genuinely believe that I do not understand the concept of 'denialism' and, thusly, believe that I should not contribute to the article. Not wanting to start an edit war, I've moved along. However, I feel the need to respond to your statement on WP:NEWBIES. I've been editing on Wikipedia for exactly two weeks. Revolutionaryluddite 02:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A reminder
Per WP:V and WP:NOR we should only include topics here if we have reliable sources that give them as examples. So if something is referred to as "denial" or "denialism" we can do so. Otherwise it is very problematic. JoshuaZ 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The PLoS article include HIV denial, creationism, Holocaust denial, mercury-autism crankery, and various others. Adam Cuerden talk 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Non Neutral
This article is not neutral in tone or content. Note that it immediately starts with a source that is not really a dictionary or word source but rather an editorial work. It then weakly characterizes the views of those who do not accept that term or label. It describes Denialism as a form of propaganda, yet it provides no objective source for that description. In addition it appears that this description may suffer from the logical error of "if A then B, B therefore A". For example, while it is known that simply "denying" is a form of propaganda, it is also a form of informing or it is also form of communicating. In addition, labeling someone as a "denialist" may ALSO be a form of propaganda and the article does not really address that side of the issue: it ASSUMES that denialism is a valid label. In this regard, it seems that the article suffers from a sort of arrogance. Gallileo proposed a policy that would not pass muster with the science or history of his day. He "denied" the traditional science and history of the day, and even sought to have some degree of policy changes on that basis. Yet would it be right to call him a "denialist". What of those who are "denialists" today who may yet be found to be correct? The article should have a healthy NPOV neutrality on the matter and it does not.

I see that I am not the first person to bring this up. I think that if it has been a complaint in the past, there is a problem. Where there is smoke there tends to be fire. --Blue Tie 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Where there is smoke there tends to be fire." Or tendentious objections. Not every smoldering talk page on Wikipedia is proof of a forrest fire. The article is accurate and well sourced. Please point us to the policy or guideline that requires topics to be based dictionary definitions or "word sources" (whatever that is), or to the one that proscribes editorial works being used as sources. Odd nature 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy you request is called "Reliable Source". It is found at WP:RS.--Blue Tie 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree this article has huge problems, and I share Blue Tie's concerns. First, denialism does not even seem to be an English word, so it's merely a buzzword used on the internet, mostly by advocates of specific positions to disparage their opponents. It definitely is a constructivist derivative of the more scientific and neutral concept of denial, and the definition of denialism suggested by this article looks indeed like POVed OR (with merely a non-notable editoral to support it). And from there the floodgates open. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny, there's quite a number newspapers, magazine and even scientific articles published that use it, reading the sources. I think your objections here are based on personal opinion and are clearly without grounds. FeloniousMonk 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it is clearly without grounds to say that "Denialism" is not an English word, especially if you have magazines and newspapers using it whereas dictionnaries dont. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Odd nature 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is being cited
Reference.com, one of the more common reference sources on the web and partner of Dictionary.com, is now presenting this article as a reference:Denialism at Reference.com This puts the lie to the article's gainsayers. Odd nature 21:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is just another mirror site that doesn't speak to the quality of this article one way or the other. ... Kenosis 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference.com doesn't mirror all of Wikipedia, but is selective as to which articles it does present in the same way it selects which dictionaries it presents at Dictionary.com. Odd nature 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to support content
I've been checking the sources added by RL to content he inserted. After reading each and every one, out of approximately 20 refs, only 2(!) actually supported the content they were given for. As pointed out by Guettarda earlier last week this misuse of sources is nothing new and it's gotten to the point that something needs to be done, as it appears to be going on elsewhere and being given a blind eye and green light by his cohort, BH and others. I think it's RFC time. Odd nature 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? I did not add 20 refs to this article. Revolutionaryluddite 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added six sources in my contribution to the 'ideological denialism' section that has since been removed entirely. I added four in my contribution to the 'corporate denialism' section which have not been removed. That means there's 6 references you agree with out of the 10 I added to this article. Revolutionaryluddite 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you were referring to something else. Nevermind. Revolutionaryluddite 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (Please don't reply to my posts here. If you do, I won't know.)


 * Thanks for taking the time to do this, odd nature. I've found a few more questionable piped wikilinks and such that I've fixed as well. We need to go through the other article he's active on next. I just fixed another attempt to bury/downplay mention and a link to denialism from the Climate change denial article. On top of that he's repeated tried to misattirbute the view to imply that it's only Op-Ed journalists who hold the view when he knows damn well that Newsweek ran the article The Truth About Denial in it's Science and Technology section . Definately not 'Op-Ed'. Amazing the stunts this guy tries to pull again and again. I'm starting to think you're right about a user conduct RFC. I'd endorse it. FeloniousMonk 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I stopped back after RL asked me what an RfC was. You guys are really barking up the wrong tree here. I do encourage you "to go through the other article he's active on", but do so with an open mind. (While you're at it, go through his user page, his talk page, and my talk page.) Consider &mdash; and I mean really consider &mdash; that you could be wrong about him. About the only things RL and I have in common are that we're both relatively new (at least as far as active editing on my part), that we care about the environment, that we think that global warming is real and anthropogenic, that it seems that we're both willing to argue sub-points on their merits independent of the larger topic, and that it seems we both believe in "writing for the enemy" (see also: these common objections and clarifications) as a means towards achieving an NPOV. Oh, and that I, too, have been accused of some unusual things. Ben Hocking (talk 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Neologism again
FYI this is a source using "denialism" 11 years ago: New Perspectives on the Holocaust: A guide for teachers and scholars Neologisms are words/terms that have been recently created. Denialism is at least 11 years old the source shows. It's not a neologism. Odd nature 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Failing any source to support that 11 years old is too old to be a neologism, please refrain from reverting the description of 'denialism' as a neologism as this is only your POV. Most words I use are older than 11 years old btw. --Childhood&#39;s End 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 3 + dictionaries define neologism as: 1) "a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase. 2) "A new word, expression, or usage." 3) "a newly invented word or phrase." A 1996 source has been provided showing it used in this context 11 years ago. It's clearly not new and you're wasting your time and ours arguing that it is. Odd nature 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, perhaps you're 16 years old (I dont know, no offence) and 11 years back look very ancient to you, but 11 years old for a word is notoriously young. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism to mean anything other than the Holocaust is a neologism (which includes words that have taken on new meanings). I provided a reference that says literally "denialism is a neologism". If you have some other conclusion, please include your sources. Oh, and I disagree that even being 11 years old would disqualify it as a neologism. If the word is new enough not to appear in any dictionaries, then I'd consider that meeting the normal definition of a neologism. According to neologism, it can take decades for a term to stop being "new". 136.152.153.48 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can support a discussion of the history of the term, but I don't think the best place is in the lead, or as a throw-away comment. It should be a new section.
 * I agree with the inclusion of 'neologism' in the intro, as it is accurate, relevant, sourced, and, imo, a necessary qualifier. --Childhood&#39;s End 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, neologisms are words/terms that have been recently created.New Perspectives on the Holocaust: A guide for teachers and scholars shows the term to be verifiably at least ten years old. Keep misrepresenting sources and you'll may find you've bitten off more than you can chew. Odd nature 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's called a special pleading. Denialism is still denialism reagardless of the subtype. Its usage whether for climate change or holocaust does not in any way alter its meaning. We're not in the business of handing out ad hoc definitions, simply reporting what the sources say, and your source has been trumped by a much older one. Odd nature 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a Neologism. It is a new word.--Blue Tie 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? New Perspectives on the Holocaust: A guide for teachers and scholars was using it 11 years ago. You're mistaken. Odd nature 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. 11 years is recent. There are other neologisms mentioned on wikipedia that are even older than 11 years yet they are neologisms.--Blue Tie 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a fairly new variation for me too. The evidence, though, indicates it's been around since the mid-90s, a time when many of today's college students were, what? seven or eight year-old children? That is not, in my experience, consistent with the ordinarily understood application of the word "neologism", particularly not in today's online world where a word can become quite well known almost overnight. And in my experience, the word ordinarily would be applied to something more unique than simply adding "-ism" at the end of a long accepted word to describe an identifiable class of ideology, strategy, or way of thinking. So I'm not positive it ever was a neologism. In any event, most educated folks today who are paying attention to world events already have a fairly good idea what's meant by "denialism". ... Kenosis 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't think that for something to be a neologism it must be only narrowly understood or recognized. However, your point about adding "ism" to things is somewhat interesting .. though in the end, it is a method for creating neologisms!--Blue Tie 02:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * X-ism most often means X-belief (e.g. Hinduism, capitalism, etc.). A "denial-belief" strikes me as sufficiently ambiguous that you'd still need more context to know what it means when you first encounter it.  For example, there is still a wide range of difference from say "enjoying lying" to "trying to supress a specific fact" or even "a syndrome characterized by being in denial".  To the degree that "denialism" has a specific meaning, that meaning did have to be specified and hence at some point it was coined.  136.152.153.36 03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And now we have a source using "denialism" in, get this, 1927: The Adelphi by John Middleton Murry, Published 1927. Any denialists want to stick their necks out a little further, say 80 years? Odd nature 22:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A peer-reviewed source says it is a neologism. As Wikipedia's neologism article says: A neologism "can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning".  Concluding whether or not denialism as presently being used meets the definition of a new word (or an old word with a new usage) is a job for external reliable sources, not the original interpretations of Wikipedians.  If you have sources, ala WP:V and WP:RS, that discuss whether or not denialism is a neologism, then please provide them.  If not, then the description should follow the reference provided.  It is not your job to substitute your own interpretation of what is or is not a neologism.  136.152.153.48 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1927!1968!1996! Obviously this peer-reviewed source is wrong. It happens. It is clearly not a neologism. And now you're splitting hairs to create ambiguity where there is none to gain what you couldn't using a flawed source. Jeez, give it a rest. Also, this line of argument seems familiar to me. Worth watching for sock puppetry here I suggest. Odd nature 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, this particular peer-reviewed source concerns medicine. Its declarations on linguistical matters should be taken with a pill of salt. Digwuren 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BREAKING NEWS: Every word in every language, dead or living, was at one time a neologism. Give it a rest.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  05:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (A) Being a neologism is no reason not to use a word. IMO, e-mail is still a neologism. (B) "New" is somewhat hard to define. To me, a word that's less than 50 years old is still "new". Of course, I didn't grow up with the internet, so I'm sure that's influenced my POV on what constitutes "new". (C) 1927 is 80 years ago. I'm willing to concede that denialism isn't actually a neologism. However, it wouldn't hurt to have a small section that discusses the history of this word, since this is an article on denialism. Such a section would include both Odd nature's sources that show how old the word is, as well as other sources claiming it's a neologism (probably in the opposite order). Such a presentation should allow people to draw their own conclusions about whether or not it's a neologism (presumably most people would conclude that it's not) by just presenting information from reliable sources. It should not be declared to be a neologism in the lede. Ben Hocking (talk 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had bowed out of the discussion for now, but noticed the reference to "e-mail" being a neologism. Benhocking, please pardon me for saying I laughed. Maybe after eveybody's finished discussing it, we can proceed to apply the word "neologism" over at the article on e-mail? .... Kenosis 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One occurence of the word in 1927 and then another one in the 60's does not mean that a word that only started to be sparsely used in the 90's is not a neologism. Plato used the word cybernetics, and so did Ampère in the 1800's, but that does not mean that this word was not a neologism when it started to be used more commonly in the mid 1900's. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting everyone's time. Notability is established, whether it's a neologism or not is completely immaterial. ornis ( t ) 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're actually wasting my time and that of other serious persons. Refrain from posting if you dont have anything else to say but rant. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Childhood&#39;s End: I think my proposed compromise actually addresses your concern. As this is an article about denialism, presenting both our earliest known usage of the item as well as an article that describes it as a neologism allows readers to draw their own conclusion as to whether it's a neologism or not. There's no reason this needs to be included in the lede, and there's no reason not to include a discussion of it somewhere. I firmly believe that we can come to a reasonable consensus on this issue as long as people on both sides are interested in providing the most neutral view possible. Ben Hocking (talk 14:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that your proposal deserves consideration, yes. --Childhood&#39;s End 15:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd nature and ornis, what do you think? Ben Hocking (talk 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Denialism in LexisNexis
LexisNexis search on newspapers and magazines using the term "denialism", all available years.


 * 1) Categories evaluated were chosen based on intro to denialism article.
 * 2) All numbers are based on the number of distinct LexisNexis entries, but there is some duplication since similar versions of the same story (or quote) may have been published more than once.
 * 3) All relate to historical revisionism with respect to atrocities against Austalian Aboriginals. Some also make explicit comparisons to the Holocaust.
 * 4) Related to pollution
 * 5) Related to climate change
 * 6) Majority related to Aboriginal Australians. Significant number related to non-AIDS African denial of political realities (e.g. crime, poverty)

So, denialism, as published by newspapers through 2006, is most likely to refer to HIV/AIDS denialism. In second place is denial of atrocities against Australian aborigines (not even mentioned in the current article, for shame). In third, is the actual Holocaust. Followed by miscellaneous others including: pollution, climate change, poverty, Darfur genocide, Armenian genocide, the Iraq war, and various others. No link of creationism to denialism was ever made. Only a single reference to traditional conspiracy theories was made, in particular the moon landing "hoax".

Do I expect these results to influence anyone's opinions about anything? No, I don't. :-P  169.229.142.180 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It says something else about "denialism" that there 500,000 google hits but only 300 newspaper/magazines uses. 136.152.153.36 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice original research, but it's not helpful here. As long as the view can be shown to be verifiable per WP:V and significant per WP:NPOV through reliable sources per WP:RS it will always merit mention via Wikipedia policy. If you have precise objections to specific sources those can be discussed, but your original research does not count as evidence. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite helpful. 136.152.153.36 is absolutely right that (per WP:WEIGHT) we should mention denialism as it refers to Aboriginal Australians. See also WP:CSB. Ben Hocking (talk 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A LexisNexis search, just like a Google search, is a search engine test, and so is not definitive for determining undue weight: " Search engines cannot: 1) Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" 2) Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance 3) Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses. 4) Guarantee you aren't missing crucial references through choice of search expression. 5) Guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant. 6) Search engines often will not: Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects. Be neutral." WP:SET Odd nature 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that. However, such a search can help us to look for other reliable sources that expand a topic in a direction that it needs to be expanded. I'm not bloody arguing that we should be citing the LexisNexis search. I'm merely stating that he raises a valuable point that we should include a discussion on Aboriginal Australians per WP:CSB. Ben Hocking (talk 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure denialism in regards to aboriginal Australians may indeed warrant mention if sources are provided, but the degree to which remains TDB, and the OR search engine test will not be usefull in that regard. Odd nature 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

denialism as a propaganda term
What use does the label "denialism" have except as propaganda in favor of the existing consensus approach? I thought it self-evident that it was a propaganda term and edited to that effect. Apparantly not as I was reverted and called a vandal over it (though the reverter retracted the vandal part on my user page). Now propaganda does not actually have a very strong correlation, one way or another, to the truth. You can create propaganda that advocates true things. Their truth does not make it any less propaganda. TMLutas 19:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you, although we would need a source to support that it is essentially a propaganda term, and I am not sure there is any. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as it is useful to differentiate from mere skepticism. That said, if it is obviously true, then it doesn't need to be said. If it's not obvious (and hence it needs to be said), then it needs to be referenced. Either way, it doesn't belong in the lede. (Oh, and once again, I apologize for calling that "vandalism". I meant to revert it and clicked on the wrong button.) Ben Hocking (talk 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The easiest distinction between simple skepticism and denialism is that the former position is held because of genuine doubts about the evidence whereas the latter is held on a bad faith rejection of evidence one knows to be true. Its the difference between good faith and bad faith representations. Odd nature 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the world of yet-another-definition-of-denialism, I would point out that bad faith is not a constituent part of the intro description in the article, nor several of the "forms" mentioned (e.g. do crackpots and creationists necessarily know their ideas are false). 136.152.153.36 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoofnagles'
Per WP:SPS:


 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.


 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (emphasis in original)

The Hoofnagles' blog and associated "Deck of Cards" are self-published sources. What foundation is there for claiming that they are established experts? Unless their is evidence of their having third-party publications related to denialism, their blog should not be considered an acceptable source per WP:V. 136.152.153.36 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, no. It was first published in a journal: Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort. Odd nature 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * SSRN is not an journal, its a public document repository, ala the arXiv. All you have to do to be included there is follow the "submit" link and fill out the form.  Things published in SSRN may have appeared in a journal but there is no notation to indicate that this did.  So still self-published.  136.152.153.27 00:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. I see no evidence it's strictly self-published. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright then where was it published other than his uploading it himself to an online repository? Or perhaps I should upload an essay there and start citing it?  76.235.157.90 04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoofnagle is recognised as an expert on the subject. SPS is a tool for distinguishing self-published experts from self-published non-experts.  Wikipedia policies aren't legal documents, you can't quote from them out of context.  Guettarda 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Recognized by who? His only academic publications are unrelated law review pieces, and as far as I can find he has never been quoted on "denialism" by any news organization.  Aside from the fact his self-published work is popular in the blogosphere, what evidence of expertise can you identify?  76.235.157.90 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, so he was selected by Seed because he is a privacy expert? I see.  How stupid of me.  Guettarda 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What other possible reason could an advertising supported blog network have for including a popular blogger? I wonder.  76.235.157.90 06:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So...everyone else on the site is an expert, Hoofnagle is recognised as an expert on the subject but that wasn't Seed's motivation. I see.  I take it you have sources for this?  And I suppose you don't consider the BBC a news organisation?  Since it took about 10 seconds to find that, I assume you have some sources that explain why the BBC does not consider Hoofnagle an expert on denialism, despite interviewing him in that capacity?  You seem to have access to some really great sources of information - would you please be so kind as to share them, or do you expect us to take your word for it, based on your brilliant prose?  Guettarda 08:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the BBC note. That's one example.  I did not notice any (no quotations in newspaper archives, for example).  That's still a lot of expertise to infer from a single radio interview.  As to scienceblogs, I'd say teh contributors are experts if they can demonstrate traditional markers of expertise, e.g. third-party publications, "expert" interviews, etc.  I gather that most of the included people do have some track record of such, but if I understand correctly, they also include a significant number of non-traditional "experts" like graduate students, and contributors have free reign to decide what they talk about (i.e. no fact checking or other efforts to ensure overall quality).  So, no, I don't ascribe much evidence of established expertise to merely being a blogger included in their network.  76.235.157.90 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So is that a no, you won't share your sources? Guettarda 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research in the lead
OR cut from the lead:

Much as it should have been fairly obvious, clearly we need to point out to some editors here that the dictionary sentence being repeatedly inserted into the lead represents WP:OR. Going to a dictionary to find how it defines a word is a permitted use of a primary source. Going to a dictionary specifically looking for an absent word and trying to infer something from that absence is pure unadulterated original research, unless you can provide a reliable secondary source, that has done just that. ornis ( t ) 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per OR, you can state what is or is not said in a primary source, as this is something anyone can verify. The implication is left to the reader.  136.152.153.36 21:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't... you pretty much just made that up. Read it: WP:OR. The sentence is pretty clearly OR, and by your own admission POV pushing. ornis ( t ) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's OR. You're drawing a conclusion from your own search of sources, in this case, dictionaries. For it to remain in the article it would need to be a verifiable view per WP:V found in reliable sources per WP:RS and significant enough for inclusion per WP:UNDUE. It has none of the above, thus it's OR. Odd nature 23:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is OR and I am opposed to cutting it if the grounds for cutting it is OR. It is NOT OR per WP:OR. --Blue Tie 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't even read WP:OR, or anything that's been said here have you? Going to a source and looking for a word, finding it is not present, then reporting that absence, is original research. If you can provide another independent source, that reports on that absence then fine, but until then it represents an original interpretation of a primary source, or Original Reasearch, as defined by the policy. ornis ( t ) 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bogus. By that definition anything you find is OR if you report it -- because you found it on your own. There is nothing in the policy that agrees with you. --Blue Tie 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah no, see the answer I left at the bottom of the page. Reporting what a source says is what we do here, reporting what a source doesn't say is OR. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the worst OR call I have seen in a while. As Blue Tie above, if OR is the reason given to delete it, the sentence ought to stay. What can be original research about stating that a dictionnary does not include a term?? Dumbfounding. --Childhood&#39;s End 01:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Going to a source and looking for a word, finding it is not present, then reporting that absence, is original research." eh???!??!?!?? --Childhood&#39;s End 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the policy on OR reads that way. Its a made up objection. Perhaps there is some other good reason to object but not OR.--Blue Tie 01:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I get it right? Dictionnaries are no longer sources from which you can draw conclusions about the existence or definition of words? : "It's OR. You're drawing a conclusion from your own search of sources, in this case, dictionaries" --Childhood&#39;s End 01:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try and make this as simple as I possibly can. Does the dictionary say that it doesn't include the term? Does another independent source say that the dictionary excludes the term? If the answer to both those questions is no then it's original research. We are only supposed to report what WP:RS's have to say on a subject, we're a tertiary source. We can't report what they don't say and make inferences from that, or even leave it up to the reader to make up their own mind... that's just not the way things work here. Please please please, read and at least try to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR.<b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to suggest changing that yes to no, but you've caught it already while I was pondering. I agree, by the way, it is OR. Vsmith 01:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, yeah I know, I think the fog confusion that surrounds this thread might have addled my wits. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not what the policy says. You are making this up.
 * But as I said, there could be other objections to this... and you have almost hit it. Let me place it square out and then say why it does not apply -- the real potential problem is one of logic -- not OR.  But what we are discussing is whether some object, entity or event belongs to some larger class of objects, entities or events.  In that particular case, a review of an exhaustive list of all such objects, entities or events that fails to include it as part of that class of objects entities or events (when its whole purpose is to define such things) does have some meaning.  Namely that it is NOT part of that class of objects, entities or events.  Indeed a Rose is a Rose is a Rose but it is not an orchid as any comprehensive list of orchids will reveal. --Blue Tie 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not playing silly games any more. I've made it as simple as I possibly can. It's OR, and until someone can produce a WP:RS that backs up the claim, it will always remain OR. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 01:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong. You have made the affirmative claim that it is OR. It is incumbent upon you to cite the specific policy statements that declare this to be OR.  Just declaring it on your own is a unique form of Original Research as well as writing your own private policy.  --Blue Tie 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, according to policy the burden of evidence lies with the person adding the content: WP:PROVEIT Odd nature 18:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is OR to say that a dictionary does not contain X, i.e. a simple easily verified fact. Then it is equally OR to say that a particular book published in 1927 does contain it. I assume that there are no nice third party sources discussing that book? The symmetry is very clear. Both are simple facts "discovered" by Wikipedian, so I assume everyone agree we should have both or neither. 76.235.157.90 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Go play somewhere else. It's pretty clear you haven't understood a word that's been said here. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good Lord. Why is this still being discussed? Put a fork in it, it's done. FeloniousMonk 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good Lord indeed! We here have an admin actually endorsing the ridiculous view which wants that finding that the Oxford dictionnary does not contain the term "dt31kj?1." is original research. This, if it is maintained, will go to community review if you dont come to reason. --Childhood&#39;s End 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good Lords and Bad Lords, it is being discussed because some Lords believe one way and other Lords believe another way. That you, Mr. Monk, are sure it goes one way, does not mean that the matter is settled.  --Blue Tie 18:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Barring the miraculous appearance of sources it's settled. Move along now, there's nothing here to see. Odd nature 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting well-referenced material?
This was removed:


 * Activitists fighting AIDS reappraisal have described their application of the term as a "neologism".  According to sociologist and medical doctor Didier Fassin, it was the application of the term "denialism" to the AIDS conflicts that transformed the term from a rarely used concept reserved almost exclusively for genocide denial into a more commonplace usage.

Three dead tree, academic publications certainly provide a better basis for writing an article than the blogs many people are relying on. 76.235.157.90 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the very definition of a "tiny minority position" as mentioned at WP:UNDUE. Tiny minority positions need not be mentioned at all according to policy. Especially when the exist against strong evidence to the contrary, which is the case here. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's 5 academics in those 3 citations, how many does one need to overturn your mistaken conception of the history of "denialism"? 76.235.157.90 04:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then shame on them for not doing their homework and discovering the prior usage. I wouldn't be touting that record. FeloniousMonk 04:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a notable point of view that the AIDS denialism movement meaningfully changed the way the term was used. I have provided sources, you just don't like the conclusion.  76.235.157.90 04:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That they made any change to the meaning of the term is OR, not supported by the source. At best they simply applied the already existing concept of denialism to their cause. That in no way can be taken as a meaningful change in the definition of denialism. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at them? The first two say, literally, a) "The term ‘denialism’ is a neologism" and b) "‘denialism’ is a neologism".  76.235.157.90 05:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read them both. The first stands in contrast to preexisting evidence, and the second doesn't say what you claim it does. That one, Didier Fassin's When Bodies Remember Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa makes it clear on page 13 that others simply applied the already existing concept of denialism used in the same manner in regards to racism and genocide to AIDS. Your sources do not support your change. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You want pages 115-116 where Fassin discusses the transformation from a rarely used term to a "commonplace". 76.235.157.90 05:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've already read those pages. That's far too ambigous to support as ambitious a claim as that, as well as flying in the face of preexisting evidence (sources provided here show the term in print in 1927 and 1968). And I've also read the relevant bits of State of the Nation: South Africa 2003-2004. Though it does support the view of activists countering AIDS denialism describing the application of the term as a neologism], again, that is the view of a tiny minority. Wikipedia policy requires us to present the most reliable and accurate sources. Those that do not jibe with other reliable sources do not pass WP:RS. Wikipedia policy says tiny minority views need not be presented at all WP:NPOV. The fact that these two claims, that AIDS denialism is a neologism, and that the term was rarely used prior to that usage, are tiny minority claims and are uncorroborated outside of their geographically, academically and sociologically narrow arenas, simply raises too many flags. Not the least of which is WP:UNDUE. FeloniousMonk 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of policy fabrication is this? First, there can be no "tiny minority view" about the meaning of denialism since the meaning of denialism is not the subject of an overwhelming, worldwide consensus. It's not even in the dictionnaries. Further, this word has been used only sparingly since the 90's, and what was meant by the 2 occurences that have been found prior to that is left to speculation. The sources found by this IP user can certainly present a valid alternative and if WP:WEIGHT is the fake reason given to refuse their inclusion, I of course object. --Childhood&#39;s End 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * FeloniousMonk: I agree (now) that the one source is wrong. This is my POV. However, Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth. In the light of the other information provided (e.g., the 1927 ref), do you not trust the reader to draw their own conclusion? On the other source, 76.235.157.90, I agree with FeloniousMonk that it's not claiming that denialism is a neologism. It's merely arguing that it has recently become more commonplace. Not the same thing. If poikilotherm suddenly became commonplace, that would not make it a neologism. (Yes, poikilotherm is one of my favorite words.) Ben Hocking (talk 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you actually disagree with: "According to sociologist and medical doctor Didier Fassin, it was the application of the term 'denialism' to the AIDS conflicts that transformed the term from a rarely used concept reserved almost exclusively for genocide denial into a more commonplace usage"? Whether or not you call that change a "neologism", per se, the source does say that denialism went from a term almost always associated with genocide to one more commonplace, which is exactly what I said.  76.235.157.90 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Felonious Monk is declaring that a position is a tiny minority view, yet he has not produce ANY RS, cited evidence contradicting the statements of the academics or showing that it is a tiny minority view. Felonious Monk is engaged in OR. --Blue Tie 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, according to policy the burden of evidence lies with 76.235.157.90 He's the editor who added material that contradicts more consistant sources. Read WP:PROVEIT Odd nature 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhh.. I think he DID prove it. Gave reliable sources. From the discussion I see no reliable sources contradicting that view.  Where is the reliable source that it is NOT a neologism? I haven't seen anyone produce one. --Blue Tie 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. Sources have already been provided that use the term in 192719681996. And that's exactly why 76.235.157.90's sources saying it's a neologism are of dubious value, they are contradicted by incontrovertible evidence that it's not a neologism. Odd nature 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is original research. Reliable sources specifically said it was a neologism.  You, on the other hand, have decided that its being used in 1927 makes it not a neologism.  However, THAT is original research, plain and simple per wikipedia policies. Interestingly enough, even if you produce a statement that says "A word used in 1927 is no longer a neologism" and another statement that "Word XYXZ was used in 1927", you cannot thusly conclude that XYXZ is a is NOT a neologism per wikipedia policies.  This is explicitly declare to be OR.  Yet you do not have a source that even says "A word used in 1927 is no longer a neologism", yet you just assume it.  That is OR.--Blue Tie 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't be more clear. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or wrong. Read WP:PROVEIT. Odd nature 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read this rule EVERY TIME you have asked me to. When I read it, I think: the anon met this challenge.  But the people who declare this to NOT be a neologism have NEVER produce ONE SINGLE VERIFIED STATEMENT to that effect. You are the one who needs to prove it.  The anon has done the proof. --Blue Tie 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unidenting) Then you are truely missing the point. I'll make this clear for you one last time: A neologism is a new word that has been recently created. Sources exist proving the term 'denialism' was published as early as 1927. Here it is again in 1968, and one more time in 1996. Anyone who wants to add mention in the article that denialism is a neologism will have to produce sources that prove the 1927 publication is wrong, the 1968 publication is wrong, and the the 1996 publication is wrong. Simply showing up with a couple of much more recent sources from African journals which claim the term is a neologism but which ignore the preexisting evidence only shows these newer sources to be flawed and inaccurate. And WP:PROVEIT places the burden of producing reliable sources squarely with the editor who adding the content. Odd nature 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is you who decided that one occurence in 1927 and then another in 1968 makes it that a term which has only begun being used sparingly in the 90's is not a neologism. But I dont expect you to realize that you're performing OR here again. --Childhood&#39;s End 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your own dictionary citation says that a "neologism" may also be an existing word used in a new sense. The fact that a word existed in 1927 does not disqualify its usage from being new in the year 2000.  Oh, and not that it should matter, but two of three sources are from American publishing companies.  76.235.157.90 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have pointed out that unless you can find a source that says the word is NOT new, you are performing original research to declare that it is not new. Who says that a word used in 1927 is not new?  Particularly if it has change since then? --Blue Tie 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But we aren't declaring it's not new, we're simply not including disproven material. Adam Cuerden talk 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 76.235.157.90: I do not disagree with the sentence, but I do disagree with it being in that particular paragraph, unless the paragraph is rewritten to include a broader perspective. As it stands right now, the paragraph appears to be about whether or not the term is a neologism with that sentence meant to support that claim. I really don't feel that strongly about it, and am now bowing out of this conversation as I think I know where it's going and I don't want to go there again. Ben Hocking (talk 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Sourcing and description of "denialism"
This article describes "denialism", but presently some of the key sources are "expert" bloggers while referenced material from academics is repeatedly removed. I would ask uninvolved parties to look at the expertise of the bloggers and consider whether such views and whatever other evidence there may be really justifies suppressing references to academic publications. 76.235.157.90 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is nonsense. The person is objecting to a few references to respected experts on an academic blogging site, ignoring all the other references - from everything from PLoS to news articles, while trying to insist on the inclusion of the word "neologism" when sources have been shown back to 1927 using the term. The sources he cites do show that the term is in current use, but they are not written by linguistic majors, they are written by people analysing the phenomenon in their field of expertise, so their naming of it as a neologism should be taken with a grain of salt. Noone objects to a discussion of history of the term/field, analysing its fairly recent surge in popularity, but the edits being pushed are badly placed, awkwardly written, and show no sense of the importance of the information. Adam Cuerden talk 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A lawyer who started a blog earlier this year, has no peer-reviewed papers on "denialism", and so far only one identified quotation in a news source is a respected "expert" by whose definition? Not mine. As the Fassin reference says the usage of the term was transformed by the AIDS denialism movement (also supported by the Lexis Nexis survey and the lack of any dictionary definition for "denialism"). The existence of the word in 1927 is interesting but doesn't change the fact the word as being described in this article is a modern usage not an ancient one. You may dislike the sources given above, but which of your "reliable" sources actually discuss an alternative history of the development and perception of the term?  76.235.157.90 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of order: Do lawyers even HAVE peer-reviewed journals? Why don't we have a look at his staff profile at Berkeley University?


 * Hoofnagle is a nationally recognized expert in information privacy law. He has testified before the U.S. Congress and the California Senate and Assembly numerous times on social security number privacy and credit transactions. The text of his written testimony is online at http://epic.org/.


 * Hoofnagle was the author of an amicus brief in Remsburg v. Docusearch, a case in which the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that private investigators have a duty to exercise reasonable care towards individuals being investigated, and that individuals may bring common law privacy claims against investigators who acquire personal information through deception. He also authored an amicus brief in Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank and Trust, in which the 11th Circuit held that individuals do not need to demonstrate harm to collect monetary damages from invasions of privacy. The decision makes it economically viable for individuals to vindicate privacy rights in court, and resulted in a $50 million settlement including direct payments to thousands of affected plaintiffs.


 * A regular contributor to print, radio and television articles, Hoofnagle has provided commentary for over 1,000 news stories in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, National Public Radio, ABC News and other major media outlets. Among his recent academic publications are “Putting Identity Theft on Ice: Freezing Credit Reports to Prevent Lending to Impostors” in Securing Privacy in An Internet Age (forthcoming 2006), “A Model Regime of Privacy Protection” in the University of Illinois Law Review (with J. Solove, 2006) and “Big Brother's Little Helpers: How ChoicePoint and Other Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process, and Package Your Data for Law Enforcement” in the North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation (2004).


 * I believe this places the onus on you to show he hasn't appeared in print, and that a major university is allowing falsehoods to appear on its faculty profiles. Adam Cuerden talk 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how Hoofnagle came to be an issue in this RfC. I do not have a problem with him particularly as a source.  After all, he is probably at least as good as many copy editors for newspapers -- and we would call them reliable sources (chiefly because they are held to a high standard). But I do think his self published blog is a bit of a rant, not exactly the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should use as a source.


 * I regret that the RfC has been worded as it was -- because it is almost like an RfC on the whole article. It should be narrowly constrained to make the comments easy to process. It should be along these lines:


 * Is Reference X valid and reliable?
 * Is this reference reasonable support for the notion that denialism is a neologism?
 * What level of RS support is needed to provide a contradictory statement in the article such that its status as a neologism is debatable?
 * --Blue Tie 20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that a the Hoofnagles are quite prominent enough for the minor things they're cited for, given that peer reviewed articles and other such things support their main claims. I don't see why this editor feels that the term neologism must appear in this article, and, what is more, must appear without bothering to write up a comment on the history of the term and research related to it, which would make the addition actually justifiable. Frankly, the edits being used to insert it seem to be made in order to discredit a well-referenced field of research with irrelevant quibbles about the pedigree of the term. Adam Cuerden talk 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, i see a bizar0 world here.  For example, I do not see why other editors feel that the term neologism must not appear in this article and what is more, must reject repeatedly a write up on the history of the term and research related to it, which makes the addition actually justifiable.  Frankly, the rationale being used to reject it seem to be made in order to protect a hobbyist area of concern to an esoteric and biased few by using total and absolute denialism as a tool to protect denialism.--Blue Tie 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously saying that this is good writing in the lead of an article? Activitists fighting AIDS reappraisal have described their application of the term as a "neologism" Placed right in the lead of an article?
 * There's an appropriate place for such discussion, but there really are levels of importance, and that statement is almost content-free. This sentence: According to sociologist and medical doctor Didier Fassin, it was the application of the term "denialism" to the AIDS conflicts that transformed the term from a rarely used concept reserved almost exclusively for genocide denial into a more commonplace usage.  might well be appropriate for the article, if the source actually checks out, but amazon's search inside function on the book mentioned doesn't give any hint of such discussion. Adam Cuerden talk 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not discussed whether anything is good writing. I am talking about sourcing and neutrality. I would word it this way:  "Denialism is a neologism that is used _______".  But wording is a second order issue.  The first issue is: Is this a Neologism? Using Amazon's search inside function is not sufficient check.  You need to get the book and look at it. --Blue Tie 10:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that it's demonstrably not a neologism, and never will be given the sources that showing it being used in its present sense in 1927. Stop denying the obvious. Odd nature 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at the 1927 reference, and on this basis, the sense of the word seems to have evolved quite a bit prior to being used for the 3rd time in the 1990's... --Childhood&#39;s End 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Odd nature 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is demonstrably NOT a neologism, then you can cite the reference that says so. Otherwise it is original research. So, where is your cite? --Blue Tie 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Odd nature 23:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it has been met. Chiefly by reference to a reliable source stating that the word is a neologism. --Blue Tie 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement in the source is in direct conflict with the other sources showing the term being used in publications starting in 1927, 80 years prior. A term cannot be in use 80 years and still be a neologism. Any source that says it's a neologism is mistaken, its reliability as a source for that claim is in doubt. Odd nature 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, if two things are in conflict then both should make it into the article. BUT ONLY if they are both well referenced.  You do not have a reference that says that it is NOT a neologism. You have your original research that something used 80 years ago cannot be a neologism, but I have already shown you how wikipedia specifically rejects this argument in its policies.  So, now, it is up to you to prove it.  After all, what you are saying is in direct contradiction of a cited reference.  But you have no cite to prove your point. --Blue Tie 00:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. Let's talk this through sensibly. I think we all agree that the term greatly increased in popularity in fairly recent times (fairly steady growth over the last decade, major breakthrough into common usage fairly recent. So why not just say that - it should be easy enough to source - and sidestep the whole issue? Adam Cuerden talk 18:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't even have a source for that! For views or alleged facts where no reliable sources exist we have to say nothing. Just as when sources are in conflict the article must favor the more reliable or remain mute on the issue. Odd nature 22:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I closed this RFC? Eiler7 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC closed. Eiler7 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)