Talk:Denialism/Archive 4

Misrespresentation of sources
Keepcalmandcarryon has continued his campaign of distortions by misrepresenting what is in the sources here. I hope other good faith editors can hel pme reverse the damage he is doing. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Freakshownerd, as I have stated on your talk page, it's a good idea to propose obviously controversial changes on the talk page. As for damage I'm causing, I've never even edited this page, just watchlisted it. It's clear that you oppose the use of the term denialism. It's also clear that you will need to build consensus before removing it from Wikipedia. Take care not to alienate other editors in the process. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be nothing controversial about addressing your disortions of what's contained in a book review being that's also being misused as a definitive source. Please stop distorting content to suit your personal beliefs. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In your edit, you changed:"Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth[1]"to"Denialism is terminology applied to those skeptical of consensus views and is used critically to identify those who choose to deny established consensus as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth[1]"I don't see how your edit is a more accurate representation of the source. "Terminology applied to..." is clunky and improperly defines denialism as merely a label rather than a distinct pattern of thoughts and actions that can be labeled. "Those skeptical of consensus views" clearly understates Specter's claims in the source: denialists "turn[] away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie". The cited source does not discuss the use of the term denialism, so it cannot reasonably be used as a citation for a claim that the term "is used critically to identify" anyone in particular. I don't think your changes are an improvement at all. That said, I'd rather not use the word "deny" in the definition of "denialism" as its too tautological. I also prefer the more academic definition given in ref 4:"the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none,5 an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."This, or perhaps a direct quote from Specter's book would provide a better opening definition, in my opinion. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whichever source you choose, you can't cite it to support a statement that it doesn't contain, which is what Freakshownerd attempted to do. This is called "misrespresentation of sources", ironically. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The source, being improperly used, is a review of a book described as offering a "hotly argued yet data-filled diatribe" against skeptics. Probably the cite should have been removed all together, but noting that it is used to denigrate a set of viewpoints is certianly consistent with what is in the source.
 * The source does state that "The term “denialism,” used by Mr. Specter as an all-purpose, pop-sci buzzword, is defined by him as what happens “when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favor of a more comfortable lie.” Leading me to wonder: Why are we using his definition? One described as being contained in a hotly argued diatribe??? Could it be because editors here also want to denigrate skeptics rather than accurately and fairly describe their views in context as per NPOV? This lopsided account of the subject based on distorted and dishonest sourcing is itself a joke, or perhaps better yet a "hotly argued yet data filled diatribe" and anyone trying to uphold it and maintain it in this misleading and slanted way is either delusional or dishonest. The source speaks for itself on this account. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just describe the verifiable facts? Including the fact that the term has been "criticized as a polemical method of suppressing non-mainstream views"? Oh, wait. We do. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd there is no doubt at all that people who try to deny the Holcaust or try to argue that there is a moral equivalence between Dresden and Belsen are engaged in denialism. David Irving's comment "I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war" is an example of denialism.

Where it becomes problematic is when there is nowhere near universal agreement that an historic event was a genocide, and proponents of the genocide point of view use the term to promote their view and denigrate their opponents as is described in the lead of the article and in the section Prescriptive and polemic.

For example a Google search of [denial Holodomor] turns up such articles as our own Denial of the Holodomor, "Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the 1932-1933 Holodomor, an artificial famine in Soviet Ukraine,  recognized as a crime against humanity by the European Parliament, did not occur."

But others use denial differently British Government Pretext for Holodomor Denial despite their quoting the British governments position that "The consensus among historians is that the famine killed 3-6 million Ukrainians ... The most controversial issue is whether the famine was an act of genocide against the Ukrainian people. The evidence suggests not." the authors of the article criticising the British Government maintain that denial is denying that the Holodomor was a genocide.

-- PBS (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should the page be disambiguated between scientific denialism and other forms of denialism? To equate someone who has an alternative theory for disease causation and progression or who questions consensus with someone denying a well documented historical event seems unfair. Skepticism is a vital part of science and the denialist term is being definied in a vitriolic way based on a hit piece book and then used across Wikipedia to tag those who have unpopular views. This seems pretty disgraceful, and the reversion to a definition based on one author's opinion is pretty outrageous. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I put it to you that someone denying a widely accepted scientific theory and denying a well documented historical event is similar (there is a lot of similarity in the techniques used in both). As is the misuse of the term, both to defend a scientific hypothesis and a conclusion about historical event that is not widely held. As to its misuse on Wikipedia what in your opinion is the worst example? -- PBS (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, the Wiktionary definition is far more NPOV than the slanted bits stuck in here from a highly partisasn source. Second of all, if the terminology is pejorative (as seems to be the case) then we must use it very cautiously. We aren't here to denigrate biographical subjects nor to apply derogatory labels to them without providing some context. I've tried to do that, but been reverted by strong POV pushers. Someone's own views should be reflected and their perspective, if there are strong criticisms of thei8r views that should also be noted in some cases right at the outset. But we have is the substition of this derogatory label for the positions and arguments of the subject's themselves. That does our readers a disservice. Galileo and Darwin are good examples of subjects that met the definition of denialist provided by this article at the time of their research. They were contrarians. Disputes in scientific theory are certainly not the same as denials of reality or whitewashes of historical events. As Stephen Jay Gould does, we should also treat researchers with respect whatever their opinions and findings. This includes noting critiques of their work and appropriate context. But smears and biased definitions to make them look stupid, without ever representing their ideas, is just not right. I come to this in relation to various experiences I've had here including recently in relation to the Philip E. Johnson article and Peter Duesberg‎ articles most recently, where the denialist label is being attached, sources are being misrepresented, and smears are being included. I'm disgusted by it and by the admins that have stood by and encouraged these behaviors. Anyone who thinks scientists whose opinions aren't popular should be treated this way doesn't deserve the privledge of editing here and should take a good long look in the mirror. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, your point is that Philip E. Johnson and Peter Duesberg are two great, but misunderstood, scientific thinkers of our time, like Galileo and Darwin were in their day? One day we will all understand the universal significance of their work, if only they are not 'misrepresented' now? --Nigelj (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be a scientist don't you have to have qualifiactions or something?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether they will make out like Ignaz Semmelweis as far as posterity is concerned. It is interesting that the toxicity of AZT, something Duesberg postulated, is now well established. His credentials as a scientist don't seem to be much in question, nor his accomplishments, although many also scorn him for damage they believe his arguments have caused. I'm here only to improve articles according to Wikipedia's policies in accord with accounts from reliable sources. I do find it interesting the extent to which people think the use of slurs and simplistic misrepresentations are useful in advancing science or in confronting dubious arguments. Frankly, I think both men present reasoned arguments on a variety of subjects, and the rebuttals of those arguments are also compelling. I disagree wholeheartedly with some of their beliefs, claims and positions, but I don't see how it is useful to throw rocks or call them bad names. That sort of thing seemed to go out after kindergarten, as least where I come from. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Freakshownerd is attributing to me or to other editors what should properly be attributed to verifiable sources, as has been done correctly in crafting this article. It makes no difference what I think of Peter Duesberg. He is described as an AIDS denialist not because I label him thusly, but because reliable sources have done so. Freakshownerd's claims of objectivity are belied by his or her impassioned defense of AIDS denialists and creationists...which, in the paragraphs above, goes beyond debate about article content and strays into the territory of advocacy. Freakshownerd is advised to review WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM before continuing this type of argumentation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "what should properly be attributed to verifiable sources" ... "He is described as an AIDS denialist not because [we] label him thusly, but because reliable sources have done so." Does that mean Keepcalmandcarryon that you are in favour of in text attribution of individuals labelled as  AIDS denialists in sources? -- PBS (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Freakshownerd you wrote: "First of all, the Wiktionary definition is far more NPOV than the slanted bits stuck in here from a highly partisasn source." But is that not the point that use the term use it to mean what they say? We are reporting on its usage by those who use it. We also have a section on why that usage may at times be used as an inaccurate label, it is up to the reader to decide whether the usage is correct or incorrect in the context in which they read it. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring mostly to the initial definition we've provided which I find to be inadequate for the reasons I noted. As far as usage and etymology I would support more clear content addressing those subjects. The term seems to be used less frequently now perhaps because the debate is mostly over? Assuming there are sources covering the phrase's origins and the way it was and/or is still used I think those topics would be helpful to include. Freakshownerd (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reliable source I have seen that discusses it origins in in the section Prescriptive and polemic. Until the word appears in a mainstream dictionary that records usage (eg the Oxford English Dictionary) that is probably as good as it will get. -- PBS (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Evolution
Should a small section touch on evolution denialism? Because realistically, creationism, and the large number of anti-evolutionists are in denial of evolution and the process’ of such. The evidence is there, and they discredit it, distort it, or simply ignore it as if it doesn’t exist. I know there is an article about the evolution-creation controversy; however, mentioning it here wouldn’t hurt. Andrew Colvin • Talk 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any sources that use this term when discussing creationists. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is true. Few sources barely touch on the subject. Maybe it is more like "rejectionism"? Andrew Colvin • Talk 06:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard Dawkins have used the term "history deniers" repeatedly in his books when referring to creationists, ie those who deny the existence of history beyond the timeframe of their religious "history". So in my opinion its completely valid to have creationism under a section of "history denial" --83.255.178.50 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we might be better off not bringing it up. Yes, denialism tactics are very common among creationists and in many ways they are the leaders in reality obfuscation tactics; however, I think bringing it up would only attract excitable creationists with nothing better to do than make trouble here.  You can see above how many contested revisions the page has already had.  (Admittedly, the tactic of making up 'intelligent design' and changing the outer appearance of one's product is a novel one, and worthy of mention.)  There's already a creationism link near the bottom.  Wyvern (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Examples of use
I think it is time to tackle the section "Examples of use". I don't think this section adds anything to the article and its very title means that Wikipedia editors are taking a position on what they consider to be denialism. The examples of AIDS denialism and Holocaust denialism are already covered in the sections that precede this one, so I see no reason to repeat the information. I think that the two other examples "Corporate denialism" and "Political denialism" do not help to explain what denialism is.

As an alternative here are a couple of suggestions from about a year ago: :I'd suggest scrapping "Political denialism" and "corporate denialism" and just have a single heading for "climate change denial." (Dolewhite 21:30, 21 December 2009) and I agree... (Nigelj 13:43, 27 December 2009)

-- PBS (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I still agree, although there is a sentence under Corporate denialism, "In the context of consumer protection, denialism has been defined as..." that would have to be re-homed. I think the sentence, "The general class of genocide denial, of which holocaust denial is a subset, is another form of political denialism.[42]" would need reconsideration too. --Nigelj (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a broader title - perhaps "environmental denialism". This is because the scholarly analysis of climate change denial often explores the personal and ideological continuity between earlier (eg acid rain) and later (eg climate change) denialism. fwiw, I think separating political and corporate denialism in this area is misleading. They're not so separate in practice. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines as this thread. What we have now is a bunch of section titles with a two or three sentence paragraph under each one. How about just integrating the information into the article? Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In most cases it already is in the article (see for example the Holocaust sentence). -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

not just "uncomfortable"
"Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth" seems to imply denial is only used against "uncomfortable truths," while many deniers (ie. Stalinist Holodomor deniers) are denying to avoid a need to repay their victims after they caused death and severe damage (famine in this case). 173.183.66.173 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for more information.
I wonder if anyone might be able to give a bit of history of denialism. The examples given all seem to be very recent, but I'm sure denialism must have been around even in the stone age. Sadharan (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
The lead paragraph of [ this version] of this article (the last version before I put the POV tag on it) conflates denial of scientific consensus with denial of objective reality – this in spite of the fact that scientific consensus is not even part of the scientific method. Then the rest of the article subtly favors those defenders of scientific consensus who accuse their opponents of “denialism”; for example, the Hofnagle source that defines denialism is quoted both directly and indirectly (by citing to scientific journals editorials or op-ed pieces that cite to Hofnagle), which may give undue weight to the assertion that various points of view that are contrary to scholarly consensus are examples of denialism. To fix this, I propose to eliminate the indirect quotes; I have removed one of them.

Likewise, are there more reliable sources who argue that labeling opposition to scientific consensus as “denialism” is merely a rhetorical trick and that the scientific consensus should be defended solely on the merits of its content? If they exist, then we should bring them in to balance out the viewpoints. Bwrs (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with many sources that argue against the label denialism, is that they tend to be written by people accused of denialism and are therefore considered not to be reliable sources, by the people who use the phrase denialism and by those editors who edit this page who strongly support that POV.


 * As we have two sources that put forward the arguments against the use of the inappropriate use of the term denialism, I do not think there is a strong need for any more. I do still think that this page would be better served without the example section as those sections are inherently biased. -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with the words "objective reality" speaks for itself - a holocaust denier says that the historical consensus is not objective reality, those who deny the link between cancer and smoking, or AIDS and HIV say that they are only arguing against the consensus view and that it is their opponents who are denying a view that is, in fact, reality. I don't think the article does conflate the term scientific consensus with objective reality - if there is a 97-98% consensus that is always good enough for wikipedia, with those 2 or 3% having a small section to show alternative views. If the article is to be of any use it needs multiple examples (or else denialism is reduced to holocaust denialism) but, agreed, this has to be handled with care to avoid bias. Paul haynes (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting point Paul – the denial of an objective reality seems to be connected with some mishandled constructivist view, where truth is "a social construct". (I'm writing from my personal POV that truth has nothing whatsoever to do with human social groups, only "proofs" have). In psychological terms such a reasoning should be termed a defence mechanism.


 * I would guess that the article POV could be handled by concentrating on the difference between denialism in principle versus sound scepticism on the other hand and avoid some of the most controversial points that trigger the denialists here. The trouble is as always distinguishing real skilled skeptics from denialists, especially as professional skeptics like James Randi is not doing a very good job by attaining unprovable stances reminding on denialism.


 * About "scientific consensus": such a concept is not a part of science. There is a real scientific consensus, but that is just a majority, and consensûs per se don't prove anything. I'm a little bewildered that there is an article about it, since it is not a term proper, but I've seen much worse concocts here on wikipedia. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine Controversy
Why is Vaccine controversy not listed in this article as an example of Denialism? What distinguishes the differences? Thanks for your help. // Mark Renier (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Denialism is quite a strong term. I'm not sure the RS is out there yet for the autism/MMR controversy, although I can see it happening. If you can find enough good RS calling anti-MMR campaigners denialists, that would be a start.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this what you are looking for? Of course it is part of the denialism-brigade.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, a lot of that isn't admissible as sourcing, as it's largely blogs or one-line mentions. There needs to be decent imprint books and scholarly articles, or a whole lot of respectable media coverage identifying a vaccine "denialist" movement.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the links to NEJM, NPR, Amazon, Wired. Difficult to see how those would fail RS.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The NEJM article mentions denialism once in a list of sins - it's not enough as it is in no way a substantial analysis. NPR references a book which seems to be potentially good material. Amazon isn't RS for this kind of material. The Wired article doesn't identify the anti-vaccine as an example of denialism (only the comments following do). So that's possibly one book. A stronger case needs to be made.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you are looking for RS to exclude, here are some more: ---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  18:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

April 2010
user:Verbal see Talk:Denialism/Archive 3 I did offer to discuss the changes before I made them by posting to this page on the 20 May. After making the first changes I waited to see if anyone objected. When they did not I made further changes. Those changes have been in place now for several weeks. I have made the changes gradually and incrementally, so that other editors could see what I was doing. You could have chosen to undo some of those changes, but reverting out all the changes is in my opinion not constructive. If you want to go back to an old version then it is up to you do discuss and justify reverting as some of the changes have been there for more than three weeks. In you own words "rvt large changes please discuss per WP:BRD". -- PBS (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would not archive such recent material in the future. It remains relevant, and users are less likely to check the archives.  My URL, for example, is completely useless in the archives, but may be noticed and put to use by someone on the talk page. - BalthCat (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of judgement. But apart my comments which are now linked at the top of this article the only other one since January was this one by you and that was over three weeks old when I archived it. However as it is very small section and if you would not have archived it then I have no problem with restoring it. -- PBS (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please start a discussion to justify your changes, and people may notice this time. Verbal chat  09:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt BRD is intended to let you undo multiple edits without any justification. Why don't YOU try justifying your changes? (Also be careful with your nesting.) - BalthCat (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * user:Verbal I explained the changes I made both before I made them on the talk page and I also made the changes incrementally and put comments into the history of the article. Please look through the incremental edits I made and explain the ones you object to and we can talk about altering those. But I do not think that you justified in reverting all the changes without explanation.-- PBS (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify your changes. Verbal chat  06:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the changes I have made. To date your comments have been in the edit history
 * 15:45, 5 June 2010 Verbal (Reverted to revision 360774190 by TimVickers; rvt large changes please discuss per WP:BRD. (TW))
 * 09:41, 6 June 2010 Verbal (Undid revision 366272298 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) Please justify the changes on the current talk page & discuss)
 * 06:20, 7 June 2010 Verbal (Undid revision 366457784 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) rvt large unjustified edits) (undo)
 * And on this talk page:
 * Please start a discussion to justify your changes, and people may notice this time.
 * Please justify your changes

I repeat "I explained the changes I made both before I made them on the talk page and I also made the changes incrementally and put comments into the history of the article. Please look through the incremental edits I made and explain the ones you object to and we can talk about altering those. But I do not think that you justified in reverting all the changes without explanation." -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it help if I offered to help in discussing the proposed edits? If so, please give a short description of what it is either of you want in/out of the article and why. Cheers.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if PBS could give a justification for the removals he would like to make then that would be great. Verbal chat  10:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we take it from that statement Verbal you do not object to my rearrangements to the page and to my additions to the page? If not then I will reinstate them. -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Taelus what does "Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Discuss a tiny bit, revert revert revert. Gain consensus on the talk page." mean? --PBS (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As Verbal has refused to do so I suggest that we go through my edits one by one and see which ones Verbal objects to.

Verbal did you read my previous comments now archived as Talk:Denialism/Archive 3? If I had been you and I had read them the first thing I would have asked is what does the first sentence mean. And I would have answered due to a slip while editing I accidental removed AIDS denialism" after the first double quote it should have read:
 * I propose to move the content of the section "AIDS denialism" up into the section "Analysis of the term and its usage" and then merge them to remove the repetition.

As I had originally written the two section as one section back in November of last year before they were split and as constituted now the two sections do not make sense. This was the first edit that I made: See Revision as of 05:16, 20 May which contained the editorial comment in the history "See 5 November 2009 the whole point of this section was to explain how arguments are used not to discuss Aids specifically hence the reason why Evans was in the section". Do you have any objections to this rearrangement as nothing was removed only a couple of headings were moved? -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please justify all your changes that are not minor. The above is a description, not justification. Verbal chat  06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I made the changes step by step was so they could be discussed step by step do you object to the first edit I made? If so why? If not I'll reinstate it. -- PBS (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The page is locked. Please propose and discuss. Verbal chat  06:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There absolutely no reason why we have to make all the changes at once and it is probably easier if we salami slice it as I did originally. As I am an administrator I can make changes (or we can ask another administrator to make the change) if there is no objection to the first change I made. If you have an objection to this first change please explain what it is.-- PBS (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, the fact that you proposed it before and no one objected is not binding consensus, especially since consensus can change WP:CCC. Propose your changes again, in more depth this time, then allow others to discuss and comment for a good period of time. If you simply edit war the content back in after the protection expires, you will unfortunately find yourself facing a block. Please check our policy here: WP:EW. Thanks, -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 08:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course consensus can change, but as there was no objection to the change, and another editor comes along later then it is up to that editor to show that there is a consents for the change they wish to make. "If you simply edit war the content back in after the protection expires," Suggests that you you endorsing the current version of the page, in which case you are not a disinterested administrator. -- PBS (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in no way endorsing the current version of the page. I am however enforcing the edit warring policy. Of course, I had to protect the wrong version, I could quite have easily protected the page in another wrong version. It doesn't matter, but continuing an edit war after dispute protection expires is grounds for a block. I am merely informing you, not pushing a version of the page. Thanks for assuming good faith of me though! If in doubt, the admin is probably rogue. Imagine this scenario the other way around, where I let you continue edit warring after the protection expires. Another administrator then reprotects the article in, say, your version. Then Verbal could say the administrators are letting you edit war to restore their preferred version secretly. The edit warring policy is quite simple: Don't do it. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 09:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are two easy ones to start: Please justify your removal of a section, and the new addition you made. We'll get to the trimming of see also and the moving around of things later. It is much easier to to have the discussion rather than a meta-discussion. Verbal chat  09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no need to discuss all the changes at once. I made incremental edits. So I suggest that we go through those incremental edits and re-execute them until we come across one that you object to. At that point we can discuss that change in detail and come to a compromise on that edit. The first edit I made was Revision as of 05:16, 20 May do you object to that change. If so why? -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I thought focussing on the major ones would be easier, but if you insist. I don't see the point to the first three. Please explain. Verbal chat  11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment I am only discussing the first edit. The first edit is explained by the edit comment "See 5 November 2009 the whole point of this section was to explain how arguments are used not to discuss Aids specifically hence the reason why Evans was in the section". Do you object to that first edit of Revision as of 05:16, 20 May. If so why? -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PBS, please stop playing games. It's boring at not getting anywhere, and is contrary to policy. Yes, I object though I'm more than willing to be persuaded. In fact I'm pleading with you to persuade me. Please justify moving the "Examples of use" section header here, per BRD etc etc. Verbal chat  14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked for more input from a relevant noticeboard to see if others can be more persuasive about the value of these edits. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  14:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have explained the reason for the move "The first edit is explained by the edit comment "See 5 November 2009 [in the article's history] the whole point of this section was to explain how arguments are used not to discuss Aids specifically hence the reason why Evans was in the section"" The justification for the move is that it improves the article. What is your reason for objecting to moving the headings? -- PBS (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PBS does seem to be very interested in denial articles. His recent activities can spread some light. Let me have a look at the edits, maybe there'll be some relevance. Aregakn (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PBS, please elaborate. If the ES was enough I wouldn't have asked. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What does ES mean? And you still have not explained why you object to the first edit. -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ES = Edit Summary. I have read what you have added below, and still see no justification for the rearranging and deletion of large parts of the article. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The justification is that it improves the article. The reason for the first edit is given. For example you have yet to explain why you think that the Evans quote is better off in the Aids section than in the section where I placed it originally. To date your comments on the talk page and on this page are:

<span class="outdent-template" style="font-family:DejaVu Sans, sans-serif;"> ┌

Not one of these comments are a comment on the changes to the content of the article. Instead you keep asking me to justify the changes. Which I have done several times by saying that the changes improve the article. Now you may reply in kind and say that you justify you revert because the changes do not improve the article. That gets us nowhere. What is needed is a detailed discussion of the changes not the justification for the changes. You for example have not explained why you think that the Evans quote should remain in AIDS denialism. I on the other hand had now several times explained that the sentences I originally wrote and placed in Orthodoxy and heterodoxy and were moved into a section called AIDS denialism and I think that they should be put back into Orthodoxy and heterodoxy because I wrote them to explain the legitimate use of denialism in defence of science in contrast to the preceding section (that I also wrote on the use of denialism as prescriptive and polemic. To do this all that needs to be done is to move the heading down. Now instead of asking me to justify my changes please explain in detail why you do not think this first edit should be made. -- PBS (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said it improves the article. What I've been asking for is for you to say how. Apparent ownership doesn't help. Above is the closest you've come to doing this, in the last paragraph (the rest was unneeded). You say they were moved and you moved them back, but I don't understand your reasoning. Please (honestly) explain why the text fits better where you want it, as it seems to belong under the header to me. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit stood for two weeks you have yet to explain why you reverted the changes, for example you have yet to explain why you think that comments about what denialism is and the Evans comments should be placed a section Aids denial. As I said those specific comments were extracted by highlight what denaialism is and not specifically about aids denialism. If they were that they would describe in detail specific use of the general techniques as relating to Aids, and that they do not do. As to your comments on ownership I would just like to ask disinterested editors to look back over the talk page archives and make their own judgements on that issue. -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets move on to the next lot of changes as they are related. Note I'm still not endorsing your version. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  06:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to whether if I make this first move of some section headings you will revert it. Please clarify. -- PBS (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not revert it for now, but you have still not convnced me it is correct. However, I will extend good faith and review the article later. Please do not make the edits which remove information or add new material without first giving justification. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved third party perspective
Saw this on WP:FTN and came here. Rather than focus on the content, I'd like to focus on the discussion that has occurred so far that led the full page protection and user behavior here.
 * 1) PBS's initial explanation in the archive and in his edit summaries for his removal of various sections was not adequate. Denialism is a contentious topic, and two of the removed examples have main pages flagged as controversial. The reason to remove examples of denialism, "as they are riddled with POVs," can easily be misinterpreted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore, PBS's section about his edits was archived by him a mere 16 days after opening it. Not only was archiving this particular discussion unnecessary given the light discussion page traffic, regardless of actual intent, to an outsider it appears like PBS was trying to slip the edit under the radar and avoid discussion. While a new user might not understand controversial talk pages dynamics, PBS is an administrator and should be aware of the perils associated with controversial topics and should have known better.
 * 2) Verbal should have not continued to revert PBS's deletions after the initial cycle without first justifying why the deleted material should be restored before restoring the material. However, I believe Verbal's reverts were understandable because it is easy for a reasonable editor to assume PBS was not following NPOV due to the nature of the edit (deletions of controversial material in an article about controversial topics), the inappropriately scant reason for said deletions, and quick archival of the deletion discussion section.
 * 3) Now that the damage has been done and the page locked, both sides need to justify themselves fully regarding why to have or not have the examples sections and whether or not they are NPOV.
 * 4) I find PBS's requests for Verbal to list objections to each of PBS's edits starting with the first, a rearrangement edit, to be completely disingenuous. It is clear that the main reason Verbal reverted was the deletion of the denialism examples, not the rearrangements. To a neutral third party (me), it strongly appears PBS is trying to steer the topic away from the most critical point - the deletions and their justification- to focus on minor issues like why Verbal might object to a minor rearrangement. This smacks of pointiness, gaming the system, and purposefully attempting to wear down another editor. I believe Verbal resisting discussion of the rearrangements is totally justified here; Verbal would like to avoid getting dragged into a distracting debate about minor issues and instead move directly to the major ones. PBS's behavior here is made worse because PBS is an admin. While admins are not expected to be perfect, I am discouraged by PBS's failure to communicate his reasoning about the deletions with Verbal after repeated good faith calls to do so. I hope PBS will drop his request for Verbal to provide objections to each individual incremental edit, and directly and forthrightly address the elephant in the room by explaining in detail why the examples section violates NPOV and should be removed. Verbal should also at the same time provide a justification for the inclusion of the example sections and why they do not violate NPOV. 108.3.32.27 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal appears to have assumed PBS was being sneaky and made no effort to explain why he felt discussion was absolutely necessary. He didn't even say "I think this is a contentious edit" or "This is a controversial topic".  He reverted multiple changes some of whichwere merely rearrangement without attempting a partial reversion.  I suggested above that Verbal try explaining himself when his BRD plan didn't go smoothly, and he opted not to bother.   I completely disapprove of what appears to be beating someone over the head with this BRD essay while hiding behind it.  ("YOU justify!")  Discussion takes two people, neither of which should be shouting a mantra. - BalthCat (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I just want PBS to justify the changes. My revert makes it clear I oppose the changes, and I have asked PBS to justify. I am trying to discuss the changes, but others seem more interested in meta discussion. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  09:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be the case that you are now trying to discuss the edits, I was simply speaking to your initial behaviour. Upon further review of WP:BRD, I would like to remind you of three elements in particular that advise against your initial action.  Firstly, it is not a process you can require others to follow.  Secondly, don't invoke BRD as a reason for reverting good faith edits, instead provide a reason based on policies and guidelines.  And lastly, BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once.  You invoked an essay which describes itself as advanced and as requiring diplomacy and patience.  Even if it did not explicitly tell you that you should not expect others to follow it, there is a clear onus on you to do your best to help initiate the discussion process.  I cannot agree that your first two comments above are effective examples of that.  "Justify yourself." seems very adversarial.  From my observation, it escalated the tone of the discussion and may be responsible the perception that PBS is being uncooperative.  Whether PBS is right or wrong in his edits, I think you blew it. - BalthCat (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your analysis of my actions or further meta-discussion. This is not a forum for discussing topics not related to improving the article. If you want to discuss this further, please take it to my talk page. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Having both editors explain their case would seem like a reasonable suggestion.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  00:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Point of fact "edits was archived by him a mere 16 days after opening it." The comment on the talk page was made on the 20 if May which was a Saturday. The archive was made on the Saturday 5 of June that is 21 days or three weeks.


 * I think 16 days is right (May 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, June 1,2,3,4,5). That would be 16 days, or 17 if you counted the original day of posting (the twentieth). May 20th was a Thursday. 108.3.32.27 (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake. -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I archived the page (5 June) on the same day that I made a new edit to the article unconnected with the previous edits and not in anyway connected to the comments in the section "May 2010".


 * The reason for archiving (on the 5 June was because I was editing the article and it seemed like as good as any time to do it) because apart from my comment there had been only one since January. The archiving was done through cut and past, so anyone was free to copy back any section that they thought still live. If someone posts a comment to a talk page and after three weeks there is no reply and changes have been in place for two weeks 6 days, I think it reasonable to conclude that the changes made have been accepted by the people who watch the page (silence equals consent). Besides it makes no sense to make comment on a talk page, make some edits, leave them all in place for three weeks and then archive them if the intent is to hide them. So I do not know how you can draw this conclusion: "Not only was archiving this particular discussion unnecessary given the light discussion page traffic, regardless of actual intent, to an outsider it appears like PBS was trying to slip the edit under the radar and avoid discussion." If I had archived the page within days of making the edits perhaps, but three weeks is more than assuming bad faith.


 * "It is clear that the main reason Verbal reverted was the deletion of the denialism examples, not the rearrangements." How do you come to that conclusion, when I made the edits incrementally and Verbal could have selectively reverted. If not the first time the second or third time. Further Verbal has also reverted an edit I made on 5 June which was nothing to do with the removal of the example sections?


 * "Verbal would like to avoid getting dragged into a distracting debate about minor issues and instead move directly to the major ones." All Verbal had to do is step through the edits as I made them, agreeing to them or disagreeing with them. I deliberately made them that way, so that they could be de-constructed if anyone had objected to them. I had expected that if anyone was going to object to them that they would revert to the edit to which they objected, and that this would happen within days not weeks of the edits being made.


 * But to date Verbal is oppose even the first edit that I made. Indeed to date dispute my request for Verbal, Verbal had not yet explained what it is that (s)he disagrees with in the series of edits that I made. -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As to my explanation here it is: From the talk page:
 * I propose to move the content of the section "AIDS denialism" up into the section "Analysis of the term and its usage" and then merge them to remove the repetition.


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

From the history of the article: At that point I stopped and waited a day an a half to see if anyone who watches the page objected to the changes I had made. --PBS (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * diff 05:16, 20 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (See 5 November 2009 [in the article's history] the whole point of this section was to explain how arguments are used not to discuss Aids specifically hence the reason why Evans was in the section)
 * diff 05:24, 20 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Analysis of the term and its usage: moved one paragraph up.) (undo)
 * diff 05:28, 20 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Analysis of the term and its usage: moved it again and stripped off the name of the article which is in the citation)

I know that people do not always follow talk page changes, but usually people who are watching a article will look to see what changes have been made if it flags up changes. I know that removing the examples might be objected to by some people, (while others on the talk page had described them a POV) So having made the first changes to the article, waiting 24 hours plus should have been long enough for people interested in the page to join in the discussion.

NB The "it" in the last edit should have been more specific. But the "It" is Climate change denial" is linked in the article and is not a controversial delete, and as a small change it is clear from the diff.
 * diff 22:36, 21 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Examples of use: Removed see talk page.)
 * diff 22:42, 21 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Analysis of the term and its usage: Merged two sections only removed the Tara Smilth paragraph as it repeats what is said by others)
 * diff 22:56, 21 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer m  (→Orthodoxy and heterodoxy)
 * diff 23:22, 21 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→See also: reduced the list removed some because they are in the text others because they were not directly relevant)
 * diff 23:25, 21 May 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (link denial in the text removed it from "see also")

Three weeks later and unrelated addition to the article to help balance the section lengths between positive and negative usage and introduce some points that I had highlighted on the talk page over a year ago:
 * diff  12:30, 5 June 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Prescriptive and polemic)

Now as far as I can judge that is a very complete list of descriptions of the changes I made. The only think I can see is missing is this link to the 5 of November which shows the section "Orthodoxy and heterodoxy" as it was on that date, which the first tranche of edits put back.

Nomen Nescio given the above what is it that you think I missed out in the description of the edits that I gave? -- PBS (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, have not looked at this recently but will answer ASAP. Hope temperature is somewhat lower today :)---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  18:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial
In connection with that the article states:"the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality". This is utter nonsense. The term "Holocaust denier" is polemical language used for Holocaust Revisionists and they base there view on the fact that evidence for the Holocaust can not be found in verifiable reality. --41.17.186.39 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One needs to be in touch with "verifiable reality" before one can evaluate the mountain of physical evidence cited to support the widely accepted historical reality...In any case, this is not a forum to debate the issue, so please offer constructive suggestions that will help this article better reflect Wikipedia policies and guidelines on verifiability, neutrality and the discussion of minority views. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't make much sense to me: "The general class of genocide denial, of which holocaust denial is a subset, is another form of political denialism.[43]" I don't see how denying the Holocaust would gain anyone any political advantage. Of course present-day political leaders accused of genocide are going to deny it, but I'm not sure that's really denialism. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the wording does harm to the English language, but I think I can see the intent. Genocide denial tends to be related to attempts to rehabilitate/whitewash the political movements that spawned said genocide -- which are generally in some way ancestral (or otherwise related) to the denier's own political views. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jaque Hammer for a practical example see the sections "Falsification of evidence" and "Far-right in Germany" in the article on the bombing of Dresden. To quote Bertolt Brecht "For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again". -- PBS (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Denialism- Is it a word?
Sounds like a bunch of made up nonsense to me to coin a phrase "denialism" as a fancy way of saying you're in denial about something as a means of name-calling people that have critical opinions of global warming or that creationists are in denial. Sounds like a bunch of baloney to me. This article is a fancy way of saying or a polite way of saying bullshit is what it sounds like to me. This article is a bunch of bullshit by saying you're in denial about something by pushing someone who isn't comfortable with something, the truth that can be an opinion perceived differently. I'm not into forcing people to believe thinks that they do not want to and using emotionsl blackmail, forcing someone to believe in something, by saying they're in denial as a way to push them.

This article is crap! There is no such word as denialism in the dictionary. It is a neologism pure and simple. The article should say that denialism is a neologism and nothing more. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth or a denialism inc. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, to say that there is a denialism at work, an organized system of denial.

03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)


 * Sorry you disliked the article. Like other Wikipedia articles, this one is based not on subjective ideas of truth but rather on verifiability. Incidentally, the word is derived from denialist, as you can see here. Rivertorch (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "denialist: a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:" It is not that simple because it denies the possibility of the concept of paradigm and paradigm shifts -- by that simple definition Albert Einstein started out as a as a denialist. In the area of history it does not allow for historical revisionism (another form of paradigm shift). -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The denialist "argument" about people like Einstein perhaps (just) merits rebuttal. Eistein was a scientist and never denied the validity of science for a moment. Nor (for a moment) did he ever "deny" the validity of Newtonian Physics - he investigated known phenonema that Newton's laws fail to explain and came up with the theory of relativity which does explain them. Not a iota of denial in any of that. Scientists are continuously coming up with new ideas and perspectives - the idea of "faith" in a body of immutable truth is total anathema to science. "Belief" in the religious (or political/commercial) sense doen't come into it. Every scientist with a new or "different" idea is not a denialist or we'd still be stuck in the Middle Ages. Rather, a "scientific" denialist is someone (usually not a scientist at all, or if he is one, then someone in a different field) who obstinately refuses to acknowledge the possibilty that something the vast majority of scientists in the field in question have come to accept MIGHT be true. This goes far beyond the idea of healthy scepticism - in fact it isn't sceptical at all, since it is ultimately based on a system of belief (religious, philsophical or even commercial) being offended. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Well put. Rivertorch (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an similar conversation in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Soundofmusicals your argument is not against what I wrote but about something else (your argument seems to be that science only advances in incremental steps within a know framework, which leaves no room for the concept of a paradigm -- or for revolutions in scientific thinking (paradigm shifts) such as that bought about by Einstein's new theories). If Einstein had accepted "the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific ... evidence" then there would have been no need for his first papers (on special relativity). It is not that he did not except the scientific methods used to gain information, but that he did not agree with "the truth of a concept or proposition" that had been put forward (and excepted by the scientific establishment) to explain the information that could be extracted from experimental data. Hence the simple definition given in the dictionary is too simplistic to explain what denialism is. There is an interesting paper by Wendie Ellen describing why Irving lost his English court case and then goes on to see how some of the legal concepts in the case could help the American judicial system. In the paper she summarises what the court described as an "objective historian" which is a distillation of the points put forward by Richard J. Evans (Evans's points are quoted in this article). She uses the concept of the "objective historian and add another concept to it -- what she calls a "conscientious historian" -- and argues that it was Irving's failure as an "objective historian" not his right wing views that caused him to loose his libel case, as a "conscientious historian" would not have "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence" to support his political views. I think one can draw up a very similar list for scientists to that of the (now legally defined) objective historian, which we could call the objective scientist and the also use the concept of the conscientious scientist. Using those two concepts it is much easier to define what a denialist is, rather than trying to do it from that simple dictionary definition which does not allow for paradigm shifts.
 * --PBS (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * --PBS (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the "conscientious scientist" but as you say - that is another subject. Simple definitions are always imperfect, if only because nothing is simple. On the other hand if you can't define things simply no one will ever have any idea what you are talking about. Of course not all "steps" are simple or incremental - but paradigm shift itself is relative - to a degree (however minute) it is involved in ALL new knowledge and every new idea - however closely it is based on the existing paradigm. Some steps are just a whole lot more radical than others, and involve a much more marked "movement". The only part of this that matters here is that none of it looks anything like denialism, which comes to its conclusions first (and generally from a position of more or less complete ignorance) and then (at least in the case of the "conscientious" denialist) looks for evidence, or at least "reasons" for the conclusion. Most denialists don't even do that of course - they just repeat a simple mantra ad infinitum. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for clearer sourcing
Since Diethelm and McKee cited my webpages as sources in their articles http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.extract (2009) and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21156741 (2010), I was wondering if it's more appropriate to cite the original webpage? http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/ (this changed recently when scienceblogs migrated to WP). I don't want to do the edits myself or contribute to this article as a whole because it feels self-serving. But I feel that the changes would serve useful purposes to wikipedia users. For one, the Diethelm and McKee articles are paywalled. Also, isn't original sourcing preferred or is it better to have a reference to a peer reviewed journal, even if it's citing the same source? Should it have both? I have noted that some pages such as skeptical science have started using the definition cited in their articles and attributing it to them, even though they're quoting me (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html). It may be confusing is all

Also the language citing the 5 tactics seems a little clunky:

For instance: "Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the event by suggesting opponents have an ulterior motive for their position or are conspiracy theorists." This is confusing. Conspiracy theories are a hallmark of denialism since the tactic requires explaining away large amounts of historical, scientific or other objective data. However the sentence ends with "or are conspiracy theorists" which creates the appearance that the denialists call their opponents conspiracy theorists. I would suggest "Conspiracy theories -- dismissing the event by suggesting a non-parsimonious conspiracy theory to explain why their view contradicts scientific, historical or other objective data"

As for cherry-picking the definition seems too restrictive. It also refers to the abuse of quotes and even individual data out of context. It's not just scientific papers which have the virtue of having at least passed peer review. This definition should include behaviors like selecting a single temperature reading or sea-ice level to suggest there is not climate change etc. Or the misquoting of Darwin to allege he was a racist etc. How about something more like "Cherry picking — Selecting quotes out of context, and using anomalous data points, or flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look like they base their ideas on weak research. Finally, fake experts should include the "listing" tendency of denialists to create lists of non-experts that appear to be scientists or specialists in order to bolster a claim, for instance the Oregon petition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition I would write something more like "False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or listing scientists or scholars in other fields as opponents of a theory to lend supporting evidence or credibility (see Oregon petition)."

I discussed all of these tactics extensively here http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/ (also changed with WP migration) in April of 2007 when I began writing on scienceblogs.

You guys have done a great job with this page. I feel like as an advocate of explaining denialism as a concept to stem anti-science I may be biased or have a conflict with contributing directly to the page, but since it cites some of my work I hope it's OK if I give some suggestions. Mhh3f (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Copying text between articles, adding missing long citations
There are three articles with the short citations to "Pinholster 2006." but no long ones in a References section. They were created with the following edits:
 * Macroevolution -- user:Aunt Entropy at 17:31, 17 October 2009 (attempt to add ref) diff
 * Kent Hovind -- user:Kevinkor2  at 22:50, 25 September 2010 (Copied general argument from Creation–evolution controversy) diff
 * Denialism -- user:ComfyKem at 15:13, 28 February 2013 -- no comment diff

Thanks to Kevinkor2 including the name of the article it is possible to trace the original to Creation–evolution controversy. Including the name of the article is part of the copyright policy, but it also helps editors find and fix problems like this one. See
 * Wikipedia:Plagiarism § Copying within Wikipedia
 * Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia § Other reasons for attributing text

I am going to fix the missing long citation by using versions from Creation–evolution controversy using the same date as Kevinkor2 did: 21 September 2010

-- PBS (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A change to the lead
I reverted this edit because it refelcts the issues raised in the setction "Prescriptive and polemic" and helps to balance the POV in the lead section. -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that the lede should be evenly 'balanced'? That we need to show that denialism is just as good, and just as valid, as — what is the opposite? — realityism? Do you really think that the longest paragraph in the lede should summarise "Prescriptive and polemic", which is the shortest section in the article? That section is based on two cited sources, so why do we need 13 extra citations in that one lede para? No, I think the WP:LEDE should summarise the whole article, fairly and proportionately. The material in that para, if it has a place at all, should be in context somewhere inside the body of the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that nearly two years have passed, but it appears that I forgot about this discussion! I have therefore - since neither PBS or anyone else seems to have thought of a response to my point, and I'm sure that I have the MoS on my side - moved some of the excess material into the body of the artilce, leaving only a summary in the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So. reverted me without summary or comment here. I think that's just rude. Maybe they'll have time to explain the WP:LEDE part of the MoS to me here soon. --Nigelj (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * edit clash

And I have reverted your edit. Your question "That we need to show that denialism is just as good" is phrased in a certain rhetorical way to which the answer is please rephrase the question. The point is as is made in the section to which you refer, the use of the label denialism is prescriptive and polemic and that needs to be made clear in the lead. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW why do you misspell lead? -- PBS (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As to balance I have made it clear in the past I think that the examples section should be removed completely and he best example used to explain what denialism is, which is what I did when I moved the SA examples into the descriptive section. If that is not possible then sections link "Corporate denialism" should go -- PBS (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about 'balance' in the article, it's about the WP:LEDE "summariz[ing] the body of the article with appropriate weight", and so not having material in the lede section that is not mentioned in the body. Please address that exact point, with regard to policies and guidelines, and start a new section if you want to discuss something else. --Nigelj (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why use the redirect WP:LEDE instead of WP:LEAD? You have taken one sentence from the guideline and ignored the rest of it. The lead should not just be a summary of the article but also be a short article in its own right and it should be unbiased. At the moment there are three sentences pointing out the problems with the word -- your edit reduced that to one and "Use of the word denialism in these contexts has been criticised." which is clearly not a fair summary of the problems with the use of the word denialism, particularly in the context of alledged genocide denial and alleged crimes against humanity. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a bigger problem is that the lead gave WP:UNDUE weight to Fitzpatrick's opinions (which are not cited to anyone but himself); while we have several different criticisms, going over the relevant section, it seems like the most prominent (and, more importantly, only widely-sourced) criticism is that the use of the term invites comparisons with the Holocaust, so that should probably be the only one the lead focuses on. I strenuously object to the old wording in particular; yes, there is criticism, but using Fitzpatrick's wording and opinions as an example seems severely out of line, since his article seems both more strident and less noteworthy than the majority of the criticism covered in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all heterodoxy is denialism (paradigm shifts)

 * see above Denialism- Is it a word?

Currently the article states:

But that sentence precludes the concept of a paradigm shift where the early exponents of a new paradigm "reject basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus".

For those who are not familiar with Thomas Kuhn's ideas, here is a one paragraph description. He postulated that normally science progresses in a stable environment, where the discipline is broadly in agreement about the underlying theories that support their work, and that most of the work in that discipline is an incremental advancement in knowledge. Within this orthodoxy framework the sentence about denialism would be true. However, occasionally ideas are put forward that radically challenge the perceived wisdom/paradigm of a discipline. Usually these will be rejected, but occasionally after a period of turmoil they will overthrow the orthodoxy. A famous example described in a paragraph in the article paradigm shift is:

We need wording in this article that differentiates between denialism and legitimate scientific postulations that lead to a paradigm shift. The current greened sentence and rest of the lead does not do that. The problem is that all denialism is heterodoxy but not all heterodoxy is denialism. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, in order to understand the way the Einstein's ideas impacted Newtonian physics, you need to have a basic idea about the two. Our article Special relativity says, "For velocities much smaller than that of light, one can neglect the terms with c2 and higher in the denominator. These formulas then reduce to the standard definitions of Newtonian kinetic energy and momentum." Einstein never 'denied' the validity of Newtonian physics, he simply extended and refined its model in an area (e.g. extremely high speeds) where the existing model could become much more accurate. The difference his mathematics makes, at any speeds that had been encountered or considered up to that time, is so infinitesimal that it made no difference to any practical calculation, e.g. in perhaps the 6th or 8th decimal place. Yet his work was indeed a major 'paradigm shift'. I don't see how we can make a simple change to an opening sentence that explains all that and still makes it clear what people who say "I refuse to believe in or accept this random piece of established science" are doing. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PBS and urge us to consider his very important point. CircularReason (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

mental illness Denialism
what about mental illness Denialism? Markthemac (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Got an example? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess Markthemac meant denial. --J. Sketter (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thomas Szasz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.188.242 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thomas Szasz takes the (ultra)libertarian view that treating mental illness would be a violation of individual rights, unless the individual himself or herself seeks treatment. Freedom of refusing psychiatric treatment has been enshrined since then in Western psychiatry, with a few exceptions. Besides Szasz said that he never supported anti-psychiatry and that he has nothing but contempt for it. So, whatever we may think of Szasz's philosophical assumptions, he is not a moron and he understands what he talks about (i.e. medical consensus). When I think of denial of mental illness, Scientology comes to my mind as a better example. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So, in Szasz's view a shrink's power to stop a hobo from ranting does not take precedence over the hobo's right to continue ranting, since the two have equal rights to hold and express thoughts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified food
Removed: "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food" and related references.

There was broad scientific consensus on asbestos, DDT, smoking, fen fen and thalidomide. Until there wasn't.

Other proven facts in the article are very different to new technologies and their health effects, with medical bodies expressing current concern. Perhaps if we understood everything about human health the few studies done so far could potentially be conclusive. As it is, there is not a final answer yet on the Genetically modified food controversies. The section does not belong in an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloerc (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Eloerc (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BALL. See also WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

wp:flat 2.9 Genuine controversy as reported in the mainstream media. I would argue that denying the existence of controversy is, in this subject, a fringe opinion. wp:flat 2.5 Burden of proof The burden of proof is on the new technology to be proven safe before put into use. Many countries have banned GM foods on the basis that it is not yet proven to be safe. See precautionary principle. wp:ball I think the perspective that the science is unshakeable is required, before requiring a "prediction" that the science will one day be disproven. I think the feeling suggested that GM foods are safe being unshakeable is perhaps due to your location in North America somewhere.

Eloerc (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All science could one day be disproven, see falsificationism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add that the theme of this page is predominantly historical events that have already happened. Climate change is included because of the verfiable scientific data based on a long history of well, weather and a long history of knowledge about what effects it. GM foods are new.

I think it is disrespectful to include GM foods along with these well backed topics.

I will look at fasificationism but I am not sure you are seeing my point about the science of GM not being nearly as certain at this point in time, in most of the world, as you believe. Eloerc (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored in order to show respect to your pet theory, instead it renders the academic consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I contend the topic does not belong on this page. You are equating a regulatory process that confirms food is safe for consumption, without long term follow up or epidemiological studies, with scientific consensus. It doesn't compare to historical events that actually happened. Climate change deniers do not have any science backing them up. GM food safety deniers are respected scientists concerned with the risks of the technology and the limitations of safety studies, regulations and the variables that we aren't able to measure.

Eloerc (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Science in general is fallible, get used to the idea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The most you can say, is that the GM food which has been approved for human consumption, is safe for human consumption, as far as we can tell, from the limited studies done so far. We have no way of tracking their use in the population or doing any follow up studies. There are too many variables to know for sure the impact on the environment or human health in the long run. Thus, the topic does not belong in this article.

Eloerc (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Various GMO organisms are different. The attempt to paint them with the same brush (as unsafe) is pathetic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically, one could engineer lethal tomatoes, but that does not mean that all tomatoes-GMO are unsafe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to edit it to this: There is wide agreement that the regulatory framework surrounding GM foods is sufficient to prove that GM foods approved for human consumption are safe for human consumption. There are broader disagreements on the safety of GM technology in theory and application.

Though it will seem out of context with the topic, because it is.

I will have a look at taking it to a forum if you would still like to leave it as is.

Eloerc (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is already an accepted arbitration case about GMOs, so take care not to defend WP:FRINGE positions against sources which pass WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I don't know about painting with the same brush or tomatoes, I just know it's not denialism. The people who deny the holocaust usually have spurious motives, for example. The GM people are usually genuinely concerned. Eloerc (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt that some are genuinely concerned about GMOs, however that does not trump WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The question here is what on earth has genetically modified food got to do with denialism? There is no mention of the word in the disputed section, I know of no references that mention it in this context, and when we follow the link to the main article, the nearest we find to a mention is, "Lack of labeling denies health professionals the ability to trace potential toxic or allergic reactions." Therefore, from the disputed text and other related Wikipedia articles, it is not even clear which side of the GMO argument is purported to be in denial. Is it the anti-GMO campaigners denying something obvious, or is it the multinational corporations denying the existence of a massive anti-GMO movement? Given the lack of use of the word in any mainstream reliable sources that I can see presented here, as well as our own lack of clarity in article text, clearly this section has no place here at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How about Denialism by Michael Specter. I did not read the book myself, but he links denialism with GMOs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Denialism" of scientific consensus
Most people accept the bulk of scientific consensus, even the parts they don't understand. For instance, although few lay people really understand Einstein's laws of relativity these are not widely "denied" in the way that other, largely less incomprehensible, scientific ideas are. The motives for denial actually have little or nothing to do with ignorance, or inability to grasp the concept concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Denialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012140414/http://hdot.org:80/trial/defense/evans/6 to http://www.hdot.org/trial/defense/evans/6
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081202191027/http://www.aegis.org/files/tac/2006/errorsinfarberarticle.html to http://www.aegis.org/files/tac/2006/errorsinfarberarticle.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091126155807/http://www.forteantimes.com:80/strangedays/science/2158/abominable_no_men.html to http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/science/2158/abominable_no_men.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070303010236/http://www.thenation.com:80/blogs/notion?pid=65330 to http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=65330
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080202043206/http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx to http://www.nsta.org/publications/evolution.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety
A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect the current language in the section on GMO's in this article. The Wordsmith Talk to me and Laser brain   (talk)  have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
This is a notice that Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIR corn (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)