Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Although there were valid reasons to delete, the overwhelming consensus here was clearly keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Denialism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NEO violation. While there are a number of sources for Holocaust Denial and AIDS Denialism there are precious few sources discussing Denialism as a standalone concept. The article has been and remains a loose collection of sources dealing with specific non-overlapping subjects which have been WP:SYNTH'ed together by WP:OR. The state of the article after the last no-consensus by very editors has not seemed to have improved, if anything the WP:SYNTH has gotten worse. As we already have articles on Holocaust Denial and AIDS Denialism as well as descriptive articles on Propaganda, Artificial controversy and methods of Disinformation I fail to see the need for maintaining this article on a neologism supported by  synthesis of  original research. - Unomi 05:53, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is not about a neologism; it is about an underlying concept, which is widely recognised. It just so happens that the best article title is a relatively new term. Hesperian 06:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources which back up your contention. Unomi (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please note that 'google hits' do not in anyway confer notability or establish WP:V. What we need are good sources that cover 'Denialism' as a standalone concept, so that editors do not have to resort to WP:SYNTH. When taking part in this discussion please do so from wikipedia policy and reliable sources. Unomi (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Core concept is documented in WP:RS (see for example Fassin(2007) p115, which discusses 'denialism' as a general concept, not just 'AIDS denialism') and article is more than a WP:DICT definition, so meets WP:NEO. Whilst articles of this type do create problems for demarcating what is WP:Synthesis versus what is legitimate paraphrasing ('deny'→'denial'→'denialist'→'denialism'), I think there is sufficient non-WP:SYNTH material to meet WP:GNG. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fassin states the vague notion of "denialism", refers to denialism as disqualifying. States that denialism is usually reserved for the most morally sanctioned forms of denial, in particular those that concern genocide. The word denialism is used in his book a total of 4 (four) times, according to books.google.com. Note also that as far as he is concerned it is prescriptive and polemic. In fact from what I have read he seems very much to state that 'denial' is an inadequate descriptor, and is in favor of more nuanced language. Unomi (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quoting out of context (your excerpts in italics):
 * Fassin goes on to state:
 * Fassin is not stating that "denialism" is per se a "vague notion", only vague in a single context. He clearly believes that the correct use of "denialism" is as a "deeply disqualifying word". He equally believes that it has a meaning, as he himself defines one for it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the full quotes, I believe you have also covered the entire breadth of Fassins use of the word. This still does not change the fact that Fassins book is in fact not about 'denialism' it is about AIDS politics in SA, denialism seems to be used 4 times in it and while there is indeed a sentence from which you derive a definition(?) it is far from clear that this is enough per WP:NEO, in fact per WP:NEO it is not. Unomi (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I like how you refrain from mentioning that this is again in reference to HIV and AIDS, the title of the book being "When bodies remember: experiences and politics of AIDS in South Africa." Can anyone demonstrate a non pejorative use for this word outside of the word of HIV and AIDS? Perhaps a reference to a... Oh, what was that thing we had in school to look up words? OH YEAH! A dictionary! Neuromancer (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Too much WP:SYNTH. Until there's a book and/or multiple-news articles connecting all these things, it doesn't belong on wikipedia per WP:OR.  Also this article seems written by lovers of anti-WP:Fringe.  In this sense, it's far too much wikipedia WP:POV. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is this book on the subject by Michael Specter. The book was reviewed and discussed in the NYT here. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also this 2007 article in St. Louis Journalism Review. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also this 2007 article and this 2009 article in Spiked which put forward critical views of the use of this term. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These are the kinds of sources that the article should probably be based on. They appear to be descriptive and what one would expect.  But the article is a perspective piece that is neither based on such sources nor does it share their distance from the subject. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vickers, a good editor went about things in the right way, but this is how his edits were treated (None of these sources would write anything that could support a section on "Illegitimate methodology and tactics". It's a silly article.)  The article's creators/watchers have no intention of incorpating such sources or removing material that don't have such sources.  Why save it? Or how can it be saved? --Firefly322 (talk) 06:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Vickers, these sources would agree that this article and most of its !vote-Keep proponents are what Karl Popper calls a conspiracy theory of ignorance (see comment below for more details). For example, the !vote keep by 2/0 justifies that !vote based on book that one of your linked sources makes out to be junk unfit as a WP:RS. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If sources disagree, we describe the basis of their disagreement. However, I note that despite me providing both the book and "multiple-news articles connecting all these things" that you asked for, you haven't changed your vote, which is disappointing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely some great work. TimVickers, you're awesome and it would be a pleasure to work with you, but if one reads below many of the editors who have and will contribute to this article reject the sources that you are linking to.  I hardly think any objective contributor would call Spiked (magazine) a blog or that an obvious ad hominem attack no matter who published it would amount to legitimate source, but that is what the pro-denialist camp would have us believe.  --Firefly322 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might find TIGERS an interesting essay, and quite appropriate. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering there are many smart people here who argee that the current article is WP:SYNTH, calling this other group who deny this a "pro-denialist camp" seems rather objective. In turn, read the article (not an essay, which is merely opinion) on Political correctness.  If I get banned from wikipedia for holding on to objective reality, it would be a badge of honor.--Firefly322 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WHOLESALE DELETE Aside from the fact that this word does not exist in any language, let alone English, this is a blatant attempt to legitimize a whimsical word used exclusively in relation to HIV and AIDS (Occasionally in reference to the Holocaust). WP:SYNTH WP:Fringe WP:POV original research  neologism Neuromancer (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: … ummm … what exactly is a "wholesale delet[ion]"? Does it mean 'delete this article and any article that links to it'? WP:NEO does not impose a per se prohibition on articles on neologisms. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Reply It's a "semi clandestine" debate between editors. Similar to Duh-l33t, Snowball Delete, or Inoculate with Deletion Virus. Neuromancer (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see the section of WP:NEO which reads: Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.. Surely Fassins book on AIDS politics in South Africa does not constitute a book about denialism as a standalone concept, as it seems to contain the word no more than 4 times. Unomi (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fassin(2007) p115 contains discussion of the term (i.e. material "about the term"), not mere "use [of] the term". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Clearly notable, with plenty of WP:RS that show this is notable and not synth, such as this New Humanist article, mainly about AIDS denialism but also other forms). Verbal chat  07:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment So by this logic Verbal, are you an English Denialist? The title of this article is "How to spot an AIDS denialist." Can you find a reliable source NOT referencing HIV and AIDS? "Denialism" is a pejorative term used in reference to HIV and AIDS only. Here's an article you on how fun it is to create new words . It might be of interest to you, and it's from a Wiki, so it must be a reliable source. Neuromancer (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This source covers several forms, and calls them denialsim. I'm sorry it doesn't agree with your AIDS/HIV POV. It is reliable, and shows that the connection is not synth.
 * Verbal chat  07:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets try to keep musings on the beliefs and motives of others out of this discussion please. Fact remains that WP:NEO has rather clear wording regarding this matter. Only books and papers about a certain neologism is considered an WP:RS in this context, not books or papers which might use the word. As it happens we have the much more apt and descriptive Artificial controversy which covers what they seem to identify 'denialism' as. Unomi (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, could you please give more sources which are about denialism? As it is clearly notable this should not prove too difficult. Unomi (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is about denialism, and uses AIDS as an example. Verbal chat  08:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying that the article named how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist replete with an aids denialist hall of shame is actually about denialism as a standalone concept?.Unomi (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying it also covers the general term and gives this as an example. It has significant coverage of the term "denialism". It is clearly notable, thousands of RS and multiple notable examples. Verbal chat  10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thousands of RS and multiple notable examples.. Please, don't hold back, surely you have something better than how to spot an aids denialist. Please note that this source also inconsistently uses 'Denialism' (as distinct from 'AIDS Denialism) : Denialists also exploit what is not known about how HIV causes AIDS to suggest that HIV may not cause AIDS at all.,  Denialists now demand that the virus be isolated in “pure form”, that is uncontaminated by proteins. . And note that the definition of Denialism which it gives is verbatim the definition of Artificial controversy. Unomi (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of sources on the general concept, as well as specific instances (AIDS, holocaust, etc). Needs work, no doubt - but deleting it is not the answer. SNALWIBMA ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SYNTH is not a deletion reason, not here anyway.  Fix the problems.  This is a desirable subject for an article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is WP:Synth a reason for deletion everywhere else, but not here? Neuromancer (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is almost never a reason for deletion. The synthesis here does not seem so great.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the article cannot exist without synth, as there are no sources which are about denialism as a standalone concept. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. With surprise I see that there is no entry in oed.com or www.m-w.com.  However, I would expect wikipedia to have an entry, even if just a stub.  The term is in such widespread usage that it is not a neologism by wiktionary's standards, and there is an entry there - denialism.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The entry on wiktionary was created a few months after the last afd discussion, wiktionary also has looser inclusion criteria than wikipedia does. Please note that wiktionary also maintains an entries on Islamonazism and Coulterism etc. From WP:NEO As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. I put it to you that this is one of those cases. Unomi (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. There are a lot of sources that are just blogs, and we don't like articles based on blogs by non-notable people.  However, seeing as the term is so familiar to my ear, and it is not new, I would like to see the article stay, and improve.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per Verbal and Snalwibma, there are reliable sources to support this article.  While the concept is certainly best illustrated by long-standing holocaust and (especially) AIDS denialism, these and other instances (cf. deniers of climate change, creationists, the tobacco industry) are united in mindset and the use of common tactics.  That said, Unomi's point about artificial controversy is a fair one — there is quite a bit of overlap (although I note that "denialism" appears in ~20 publications in ISI WoK, while "artificial controversy" only occurs in 1).  Also, I notice that the current version of the article contains a number of citation-related tags — fixing these seems an obvious way forwards.  --P LUMBAGO  09:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not so much that there are no sources which use 'denialism' it is that there are no sources which 'cover' denialism, this means it falls short of WP:NEO: If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. I find that Artificial controversy is preferential and seems to cover the same domain. Let me reiterate, there seem to be No sources which are about denialism as a standalone concept. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - You keep repeating that point. No need to say it more than once, I suggest! I agree that most of the sources are concerned with only one instance/flavour of denialism, but you don't have to look very far in the references given in the article to find some that treat the general concept. As one example I offer this. From this I conclude that although there is a danger of WP:SYNTH, the article does not depend on it for its existence, and should be kept. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, you have cited an HIV article. Neuromancer (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Nonsense! Look at that article: "My theme touches on two momentous issues ... the Holocaust ... the Aids pandemic ... Each in different ways seems emblematic of the past century's terrible legacy of human vulnerability and failing ... Yet both these facts are denied ..." <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment HIV and the Holocaust. So a fringe writer, who obviously has ties to the HIV debate, used it in an article to describe the Holocaust as well as HIV. However, I haven't seen a film, or a medical paper, or an actual debate regarding the Holocaust. Talk about fringe. Can you find the word in an English dictionary? Neuromancer (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see: argument by moving the goalposts! Unomi several times said that no source treats the general concept, so I provided one (which is already in the article) - and now I have to find a film, a medical paper, or the term in a dictionary? I came here by accident, and was interested enough in the topic to try and help the debate by assessing the case for myself. I came to a conclusion, supported by evidence, and I stated that conclusion and cited some of the evidence. What's the problem? Why so defensive? What particular axe is being ground here? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I contend that this source does in fact not reliably treat the general concept. Please see my comment further down on how the term 'Denialist' is used inconsistently and would force us to attribute to all denialists traits which are untenable. Only by cherry picking sentences with characteristics we a priori confer to 'denialists' can we use it to support our preconceived 'definition'. This is precisely the problem we get into when we don't have (per WP:NEO) reliable sources. Unomi (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In what sense is Edwin Cameron a "fringe writer"? Edwin Cameron is a judge of the South African Supreme Court of Appeal, and the article cited is an edited version of a lecture given at the Harvard Law School. Everything I can find about him suggests to me that he is a serious, reliable, mainstream figure. And he "obviously has ties to the HIV debate"! Well, yes, someone writing about AIDS is likely to be connected to the subject. Likewise in an article about nuclear energy we can expect citations to works by people with connections to nuclear energy research. Really, the fact that the "delete" people have to resort to this kind of comment to support their position does not lend much credibility to their case. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not let yourself be distracted from arguing from wikipedia policy. Personally I do not consider him fringe, but nor do I accept his speech to be an RS per the criteria of WP:NEO, the text itself uses 'Denialism' very loosely and would force us to cherry pick and synthesize traits to support a preconceived understanding of 'Denialism'. Unomi (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Consensus with Unomi  - I agree completely. Neuromancer (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please stop giving multiple !votes (I have struck). You are asking for a source that discusses denialism, but without mentioning notable examples? That is too much, and not appropriate. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't give a multiple vote. It was indented, and small. Neuromancer (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep All the arguments for deletion are spurious. (1) We have continually been given references to WP:SYNTH, but nowhere are we clearly told what has been synthesised, either in this discussion or in the article's talk page. At a guess I should say that we are supposed to infer that AIDS denialism, Holocaust denialism etc are separate, and have been arbitrarily lumped together. However, the concept of denialism (refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality) is exactly the same in each case, and is applied to different examples. WP:SYNTH refers to combining elements of different sources together to reach a conclusion which is not given in any of the sources: if those claiming WP:SYNTH think this has been done then they should be able to say exactly what conclusion has been falsely reached in this way, but nowhere have they done so. To take content from sources which refer to denialism in connection with AIDS together with sources which refer to denialism in connection with the "holocaust" is not WP:SYNTH unless doing so reaches some conclusion not found in either group of sources, such as that anyone who denies AIDS is also a holocaust denier. AS long as no such unwarranted conclusions are drawn there is nothing wrong with combining such sources, any more than in an article about trees one cannot refer to both sources on oaks and sources on sycamores. (2) We have the claim that "this word does not exist". This line of argument has been used much more on the article's talk page. The word does exist, and is used in numerous books and other works. The claim that the word does not exist seems to be based on its absence from certain dictionaries. However, the view that a word exists only if it is listed in a dictionary, although popular, is untenable. Lexicographers put words in dictionaries because they are used, and there is always a time lag between the word's coming into use and its being recorded. This issue is discussed at much greater length on the article's talk page. Curiously, the person who above says the word "does not exist" goes on in the same sentence to refer to it as a "word used exclusively in relation to HIV and AIDS (Occasionally in reference to the Holocaust)", thereby acknowledging that it is a word, and is used. The fact that the word is used only in limited contexts does not disqualify it for coverage: the word "oak" is used only in reference to one genus of trees, but that does not stop us from having an article on it. Besides, there are other uses of the term, even if less common, as has been pointed out above. (3) We are told that we need "sources ... about the term—not books and papers that use the term". No, we need sources about the concept to which the term refers: that is not the same as sources about the term. The article on Oak gives references to sources about oaks, not to sources about the word "oak". The quotation "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" taken from Avoid neologisms is poorly worded: in general we do not have articles about terms (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), we have articles about the concepts referred to by the terms. That wording was introduced by User:cmh after he had suggested it on Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms, but nobody else commented on it. In any case, whether the above argument is accepted or not, there are sources about denialism, rather than about particular examples of denialism; for example judge Edwin Cameron's Edward A Smith Annual Lecture at Harvard Law School "The dead hand of denialism"; an edited version online has been linked above, but here it is again: . JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article synthesizes characteristics attributed to 'Holocaust Denialism' and 'AIDS Denialism' and from that by original research reaches a definition of 'Denialism'. The very source you submit highlights the problem with this by the paragraph: "Denialists assert that the "hypothesis" that Aids is caused by a sexually transmitted virus is unproven and irresponsible. Aids in North America and Western European they attribute to "the long-term consumption of recreational drugs" and to the widespread use of drugs as sexual stimulants by homosexual men and, more recently, to the administration of anti-retroviral drugs that doctors wrongly prescribe for Aids." and Denialists seek to suggest that the inability to achieve historical or epidemiological exactitude renders the Holocaust and Aids themselves imaginary.. Note that the author does not even properly qualify 'Denialists' in this case as 'AIDS Denialists' but maintains this as an attribute of all Denialists, I realize that this is a somewhat specious line of argument as this is unlikely to be what the author meant, but we are not mind readers and we have to rely on high quality sources which do not make such egregious errors, else we fall in the trap of Cherry-picking. Your example of Oak has it the wrong way around, it would be more apt to say that sources on say Oak trees and Redwood trees would be an insufficient basis from which to synthesize an article on Trees. That there exist reliable sources on oak trees from which to build an article has nothing to do with the lack of reliable sources on which to build an article on denialism. Unomi (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to draw your attention to Holocaust denial. Nowhere in the article does it mention denialism or denialist. Neuromancer (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that the sources given, including the New Humanist article and Cameron's speech, show significant coverage of denialism as a concept (coverage of it as a word is irrelevant, as James notes above) which goes far enough beyond individual examples to establish it as a general topic worthy of its own article. Given that the topic is notable one can ask what the best title is: again, I think enough sources use the word 'denialism' that we can treat it as a 'real word' and suitable title regardless of its presence or otherwise in dictionaries. I also agree with James that the line from Avoid neologisms is poorly worded and should probably be altered. Having re-read the guideline I still feel this article passes it in spirit if not necessarily in its current wording; none of the "reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate" seem to apply, for instance. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the section regarding reasons it states If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.. And the section regarding reliable sources states : To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.). Please note that per the speech we need to attribute all denialists with Denialists seek to suggest that the inability to achieve historical or epidemiological exactitude renders the Holocaust and Aids themselves imaginary., not some, not a subset, per Cameron this is the breadth of denialists as he covers it, to fail doing that, while taking out sentences which appear more general, yet no less specific would be Cherry picking and Synthesizing. The same goes with most if not all of the sources that we have seen so far. Fassins 1 line might be the exeption. Unomi (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term exists, and there are sources for it. Albmont (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what sources are you referring to? Unomi (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep   valid general concept. Sources have been shown above. It is not at this point even remotely a neologism. Holocaust denialism is the best known example, but hardly the only one. AIDS denialism ids also well-known, and on these examples, there are a great many others.   remains an adequate source.    DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have stated above, Camerons speech, which you see as an adequate source has major problems. It can only be seen as a source if you willfully cherry-pick his statements based on a preconception of what 'Denialism' should be. If we say: For denialists, the facts are unacceptable. They therefore set out to render them untrue. They engage in radical controversion, for ideological purposes, of facts that, by and large, are accepted by almost all experts and lay persons as having been established on the basis of overwhelming evidence. is adequate for inclusion, why not: Denialists assert that the "hypothesis" that Aids is caused by a sexually transmitted virus is unproven and irresponsible. or Denialists seek to suggest that the inability to achieve historical or epidemiological exactitude renders the Holocaust and Aids themselves imaginary. or even stronger Yet in one of his rare references to Aids earlier this year, he described it as a disease "of poverty and underdevelopment" - echoing one of the key dogmas of denialism. As these sentences also cover the breadth of what Cameron seemed to intend by 'Denialists'. The only way to get around this is by cherry picking and synthesis. This is why WP:NEO demands a source which treats the term by itself, not merely uses it in its text; such extrapolation of meaning and synthesis with extrapolation of other texts is, thankfully, denied us by the policies we abide by. Unomi (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A commonly known concept, even where the word may not be used, so this article is legitimate for documenting how the word is used, and for how the concept exists in society. This AfD might even be seen as an example directed at the word itself. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a commonly known concept, and the proper way to denote it is with Artificial controversy not some silly neologism for the sake of saving syllables. I agree that this afd seems an exercise in Policy Denialism by those that will not accept that there exist no good sources for it yet. As WP:NEO says: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.. Unomi (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment How funny! The general motivation behind all the Keep !votes so far is what Karl Popper would label a "conspiracy theory" concern with "sources of ignorance." In Popper's book Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge the introduction is a January 20, 1960 address by Popper before the British Academy. Its title is "On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance" and here's a quote (p.3):

I told [my friend] that I hoped to direct attention, through the phrasing of this title, to a number of historically important although unrecorded philosophical doctrines and among them, especially, to a conspiracy theory of ignorance [italics Popper's] which interprets ignorance not as a mere lack of knowledge but as the work of some mischievous power, the source of impure and evil influences which pervert and poison our minds and instil in us the habit of resistance to knowledge. - Karl Popper, ''Conjectures and Refutations, page 3. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Er... what? That doesn't make any sense in context to this discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it makes perfect sense. This article on Denialism clearly "interprets ignorance not as a mere lack of knowledge but as the work of some mischievous power, the source of impure and evil influences."  It makes wikipedia look stupid, not smart as many of the !vote keeps no doubt intend.  --Firefly322 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that This article on Denialism clearly "interprets ignorance ...", but it is not clear to me that it does anything of the sort. Can you explain how and why the article does this? Simply to state that it does so with no justification is not helpful at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sufficient sources have been given to show this is a notable concept. Claiming that "denialism" is a non-word is silly on its face, given the prevalence of reports describing Holocaust denial and AIDS denial; further it seems that the entire basis for deleting is a very narrow reading of WP:NEO. This isn't a whole new word, or even a new use of the word, so NEO isn't relevant here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a new word, that is why it does not exist in any dictionaries. The use of Holocaust Denial has since been dumbed down and reified into Holocaust Denialism and the same goes with AIDS Denial this does not all of a sudden mean that 'Denialism' is a valid word by itself. In fact, sources point to that the concept that you seem to understand 'Denialism' to be is in fact Artificial controversy. Perhaps you would care to provide sources which support your assertion of it being a valid and described concept? Unomi (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Repetition does not an argument make. Your entire technique has been to repeat WP:NEO to any point brought up in this debate. Also it is not necessary to reply to every !vote in this debate; in fact, it's considered rather excessive. Finally, the sources in the article are sufficient. I get the feeling no source would be truly sufficient for you at this point. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This perhaps shows the error of relying on your feelings rather than an honest and thorough assessment of reality as it is made available to you. Please note that 8 hours before you relied on your feelings to write the above, I put myself down as weak keep per the very commendable research embarked on by Tim Vickers. The issue here is that the efforts made to spell out which sources were compelling enough for the keep !votes were not in any way compelling to any reasoned(ymmv) reading of current wikipedia policy. As for entering into discussion with editors taking part in this, how else would I be able to gain insight into how they came to their decision? Asking questions and presenting how our apprehension of reality differs is, imo, one of the more effective ways of learning, and indeed, achieving consensus. I brought the article here precisely because I felt it to be a WP:NEO violation, it should come as no great surprise that I would like to be convinced that those who take part in the discussion have a good case for it not being so. Just stating 'thousands of RS' etc does not a case make. Unomi (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a pejorative, POV word, which means that per WP:YESPOV we ought to include a widespread discussion of its usage. And, as plenty of others have noted, there are plenty of RS for this article as it stands now. Jclemens (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What RS are you referring to? Really, name 1. Unomi (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whether or not individual editors agree with every use of the word to label underlying concepts is irrelevant. More than sufficient numbers of RS to keep. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the new source from Tim Vickers below, there have been not a single RS which meets the criteria of WP:NEO. That is the whole point of this afd. Unomi (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per this article in The European Journal of Public Health that describes and discusses denialism as a general concept. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That does look very promising, would you mind quoting their definition of it? Unomi (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can read a copy of the article here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is with some surprise that I see that the author credits and adopts the denialism.com definition. If it is good enough for The European Journal of Public Health then who am I to argue against it. I will note though that it is still excruciatingly close to the definition of Artificial controversy Unomi (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

--P LUMBAGO 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - per Tim Vickers source. Unomi (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, the source was in the article already, so I'm guessing that's why no-one thought to mention it before now.
 * This could be the reason why it wasn't brought up. Unomi (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly this is a book article with a WP:NEO and some WP:SYNTH wrapped around it that could with being cut back to just being a book article? Voodoo science suffers from that same problem. Of course, if that was done there would then be the problem of establishing notability for the book. Artw (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I'm surprised I haven't seen more weak votes on this AfD. There are some potentially promising articles on this, this article being the main one. However, as no one has elaborated on the context of any of them, and as we would require more than one non-trivial article to support notability I cannot vote keep. This article is currently falling foul of WP:NEO as it is a word most commonly used in conjunction with phenomenon like AIDS and the Holocaust. Those who are voting keep make a good point, but there isn't enough evidence yet to support their position. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also this book on the subject by Michael Specter. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * here is an excerpt from that book. (offtopic) Anyone see the irony regarding the organic agriculture in Africa paragraph? Unomi (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looking at the article now it is well-referenced and shows clear examples of the word in use moving it out of the WP:NEO category. Good work! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete though I could see that turning to keep if the WP:SYNTH issues were addressed (simply piling on examples does not do this - we need so see why these things are linked) and the horrible neologism of a name were changed to something actually descriptive. Artw (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unomi asked me to contribute to the discussion, probably because of my participation in the previous AfD. In that AfD, I offered a "weak delete" opinion. That was in March, 2007 and I was basing my opinion on this version of the article. The article is much more mature now and certainly worth keeping. I admit to a bit of amusement at the irony of denying the notability of the term as a specifically described and identifiable position. As to the WP:NEO charge, I personally know of the term being used as far back as 1980 or '81. While my personal knowledge is hardly WP:RS or WP:V, I find it difficult to call a word at least 25 years old a neologism. Pigman ☿/talk 18:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per User:Artw. This articles also a bit too POV Nicholas Tan (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is "a bit too POV" then that is a reason for editing it to cover other POVs, not a reason for deletion. Also, in what way is it too POV? I don't see that it is, and to simply assert it without saying why is not helpful.


 * Keep. Concept is clearly defined in the article, which is reliably sourced; the term has been in use for many years so it seems nonsensical to call it a neologism. The synthesis argument is invalid; there are entire books about the concept (cf. Specter, Michael (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives). The first AfD nomination of this article smacked of POV politics and, to be honest, this nomination does as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here is another article describing the phenomenon from the Fortean Times. --GirasoleDE (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The word seems to be coming into widespread use. In fact, I think it would make a decent project for the political scientist. So many people using it for so many things... I wonder if there's any order to it? ;) From a psychologist's perspective, I wonder what could be done about it? Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep but rename to denial movements to more accurately describe the article and avoid WP:NEO issues. New links provided in talk page, combined with existing links, and a little trimming would would easily alleviate WP:SYNTH problems. Artw (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to that the WP:FTN will have to relinquish it's WP:OWNership of the article. This article has real issues, buring your heads in the sand will not fix them, and you should listen to the input of other editors. Artw (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This keep is predicated on issues with the article actually being addressed in article. There appears to be an amount of ostrich like behaviour going there, so I may revert back to my earlier weak delete. Artw (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - what Verbal said. Crafty (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems to be a soapy coatrack - guilt by association, Godwin's law - it's got the works. And it is directly contrary to the guidance of WP:NEO, "For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them.".  I also endorse the points made by others above that it is improper synthesis.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course adding –ism to a word sometimes implies a belief system or political movement, but this is clearly not the case with "denialism", so the point is totally irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the only possible content of this article, no matter how well sourced, is a dictionary definition (see WP:NOTADICTIONARY) and then a series of instances of people, organisations, and viewpoints being accused of denialism, which has no inherent encyclopedic value and fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. Denialism isn't a coherent philosophy, movement, or method of logic and as such it's not possible for there to be analysis of it that rises above the level of POV accusations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete pure construct of similar named items, might as well call it List of things termed Denialism because that's what this article is, and we can have List of things termed Stupid, List of things termed Brilliant and anything else we'd like, this is the sort of article that brings WP into disrepute, and if this is kept, the keepers' point of view is another denialism to be listed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is much more than just a list. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. First, let me confess that the current article is much better than I remember when I looked at it a few years ago.  That said, there is still a fundamental WP:NEO issue here coupled to a subtle bit of synthesis.  The modern concept of "denialism" is a neologism.  Like many neologisms it has older roots in the history of Holocaust denial, which spread to aboriginal denial, then AIDS denial, climate change denial, etc.  The scope of things that "denial" gets tacked on to has expanded rapidly in just the last 15 years (since AIDS denial became common), and with it there has grown an emerging new concept of "denialism".  But the core issue is that the terms themselves are in flux.  Gather ten experts and ask them what "denialism" is, and I'm sure you get 10 different answers with varying ranges and scopes.  That's the core of the neologism problem.  "Denialism" itself is a fuzzy concept that isn't easily pinned down and is entirely absent from nearly all dictionaries.  The article, as currently constructed, tries to pin it down, and that's the origin of the Synth problem.  The editors select and interpret sources to promote a particular interpretation of what "denialism" is.  Yes, they can find people to agree with them, but it fails to consider other points of view that would disagree about what "denialism" means.  For example, go back 15 years when the number of accepted "X denial" concepts was much narrower and the historical scope of these terms would seem considerably different.  Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I think this is a case where Wikipedia is being used to shape the meaning of "denialism" rather than merely document its meaning, which isn't appropriate for a reference work.  Given that, I feel it is premature for Wikipedia to have an article on "denialism", and we are better off without it.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree, since as you say, if you gathered ten experts and asked them what "denialism" is, none of them would say "I've never heard of the term". Even if they gave ten slightly different definitions, they would all attempt to define it. A similar situation to asking ten philosophers to define "free will" or "personhood", which are equally notable but contentious topics. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People may disagree on the specific meaning, but the range of concepts attached to free will has changed little in centuries. It's a fuzzy concept but a persistent one (even appears in the dictionary).  By contrast, the frequency of use and meanings attached to "denialism" have changed considerably even in just the last five years.  It's fuzzy and in flux, which makes for a poor article topic.  Dragons flight (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little unfair. Denialism itself hasn't changed its meaning it's just that what it's tacked onto changes frequently. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Holocaust denial was associated with genocide and worst human atrocities.  If you look at the history, the AIDS activists who coined the "AIDS denial" campaign consciously chose that phrase to draw parallels with the Holocaust and tap into its connotations with genocide.  (I.e., they wanted to equate denying the truth about AIDS with mass murder, which arguably it was.)  At that time, "denialism" was closely linked with genocide and murder.  However, a side effect of the activism against "AIDS denial" was that the terms came to be seen as being about denying truth and science more so than genocide and murder.  The connotation around denialism shifted.  Then other people picked up "denial" for climate change and similar things and it became even more about science.  Many young people have no appreciation for the way language changes around them, but "denialism" has definitely been in flux.  Go back 30 years and calling someone "a denier" was the height of slander because it was closely tied to genocide and death, but that's not true anymore.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. A major book about (and titled) Denialism was released less than a week ago, so I don't see how  a useful decision can be reached until people have had a chance to obtain the book and update the article accordingly.  Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An article on a concept should not need significant updates just because one new book comes along. That you think it should be is further evidence that we are talking about a fuzzy, neologistic concept.  If someone wants to write an article on the book, more power to them, but it won't change my opinion about the undesirability of having an article on the concept.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not a coherent movement, but it is a well-defined sociological phenomenon. The use of the term with the same meaning in several contexts by disparate groups refutes WP:NEO, and the sourcing takes care of the rest. The general unity of the several claims and tactics used by denialists, including moving the goalposts, reversing the burden of proof, teach the controversy, reliance on the Galileo Gambit and similar fallacies, citing weak, biased, or out of date evidence to say that the jury is not yet in, projective assignment of motivation, and lionizing "experts" based more on conclusions than validity of evidence, unify this as a proper encyclopedic topic. Notable examples of the concept, such as AIDS denialism, Holocaust denial, Climate change denial, &c. should of course be treated. A few more example sources covering denialism (or "trees" in the analogy above): ISBN 9780387794754 Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy By Seth C. Kalichman, Nicoli Nattrass (page 9 defines denialism in general); Climate: Game Over by Donald Kennedy; the EJPH article mentioned above really does bear repeating. If the title is a problem, that can be solved at Talk:Denialism. Some discussion of use as a rhetorical technique might be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to this source (i.e., Spiked (magazine)), Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy is unfit as a WP:RS. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kalichman [author of Denying AIDS] may not be able to spell ad hominem (see his preface, p.xv), but he certainly indulges in shameful personal invective against Duesberg. To clinch his case against the ‘denialists’, Kalichman notes that Duesberg is of German origin, and indeed that ‘his father served in the German army during World War Two’ (like every other German citizen eligible for conscription). Furthermore he discloses that Duesberg ‘spends his summers in Germany’ and that some of his campaign supporters are also German. Kalichman warns that Duesberg ‘may evoke a sort of nationalist sentimental loyalty among some fellow countrymen’.
 * The use of the concept of ‘denialism’ as a cudgel with which to beat anybody who questions the Holocaust or global warming has become familiar (1). It is used by people like social psychologist Seth Kalichman, author of Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience and Human Tragedy, who seem incapable of winning a rational argument.
 * With a source written by an author "who seem[s] incapable of winning a rational argument", article will be WP:POV junk. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the issue is not whether we agree with the way the concept of "denialism" is used or misused by various writers, but whether it exists as a concept notable enough to merit a WP article. The more of these "unreliable" sources you quote, the stronger the case for retaining the article! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 12:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And please be mindful of WP:BLP - it applies here as well as on articles, and includes quotes from unreliable sources. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your judgement of what is and is not a WP:RS in regards to this article would appear to be deplorable. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark these words: this article in its present form will bring shame to wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So improve the article - but that is not the point of this discussion, which is concerned with whether the topic merits an article. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Denying AIDS was published by Springer, which is good enough for WP:N and the discussion here. If anyone wants to go blog-delving for prominent scholars writing in their field of expertise, there is plenty of no, you are a denialist backsplash from 9/11 conspiracy theorists and global warming denialists and antivaccinationists etc. Writing off the entirety of someone's views on a topic is about as effective as invoking Godwin for convincing the person themselves, but people call each other denialists so we should cover what they mean (as a function of time and society) and why. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:SYNTH is as valid a reason as any to delete the article - this should be a category. If it doesn't, and can't meet guidelines like SYNTH in its current form, it should be scrapped. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The term is used in a number of contexts, and similarities between different kinds of denialism are pointed out (or alleged) fairly regularly. An article like this will always have problems, but it's significantly better than when I last looked, and the best response is to improve it further.JQ (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. But not because I believe that the concept has proven itself valid from an NPOV to be presented as an established "ism."


 * What exactly does "denialim" refer to? A psychological phenomenon? A sociological phenomenon? A legal phenomenon? A political phenomenon? A scientific phenomenon? And where is the evidence of its discrete phenomenological existence that has been subject to any kind of academic rigor by psychologists, sociologists, legal professors, political scientists, or regular scientists?


 * But to delete the article wholesale would be a mistake IMHCO, in that the term occurs as a pejorative in polemical discourse in defense of perceived orthodoxy by people of note such as Edwin Cameron.


 * The article on the term cult here does a fairly good job of threading this kind of needle. It begins, "Cult pejoratively refers to a religious group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister."


 * I had this kind of treatment in mind, back when I attempted an edit or two, but at the time it seemed like I was running the risk of a revert war with editors who were true believers in the concept as an "ism." Which is the kind of thing I have exactly ZERO time for. ô ¿ ô  19:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in spirit with what is being said. I'm not calling for a salting of the term denialism, banning it from wikipedia.  The article as is, is WP:SYNTH and doesn't recognize that the term denialism is an almost purely pejorative term that is being pushed by WP:TIGERS. However politically correct their words may be, their actions here and ultimate article content is that of WP:POV WP:TIGERS. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that many of the !vote keeps are just expressions of naivety. Others may just want to keep the term. And to those, what I have written may indeed seem bizarre and unfair (I don't quite see unfairness here, but I am admittedly using broad strokes in my descriptions of the situations). ( There are no doubt finer lines that can be drawn here and more careful language could be used to tease out what exactly is being argued for and against and by whom.)  Nevertheless, in this case, the article and some of its potential sources are agressively pejorative. In five-seven days of discussion (as long as an AFD is open), that fact, no matter how nobel the intentions of denying it may be, should not be lost. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep More than 600 news results, and over 300 book results, use the word. Have you never heard of someone being "in denial" or "in a state of denial"?  "Denialism," is the state of being in denial about something.  Its a very common psychological state.  Far less common than common sense of course, but still very easy to find people suffering from everywhere.   D r e a m Focus  18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, a cursory scan of the sources shows that there's been at least one entire book written on the subject, as well as plenty of additional sourcing. It's not synthesis if someone else does the synthesis, and that's quite clearly been done here. If there are synthesis problems, by all means fix them, but the subject itself seems to have plenty of sourcing behind it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Look, NPR reads AfD! - BalthCat (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Verbal. -- King Öomie  21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, AIDS denialism and Holocaust denialism should be a clue that the core connecting philosophy could be reasonably turned into a good article. There also Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives and countless articles including "Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Efforts" and "Climate Change Mythconceptions: Some Incorrect, Irrelevant and Misleading Arguments Made by Climate Change Denialists"; plus countless articles including NPR's "Refusing Flu Shots? Maybe You're A 'Denialist'". The book author can be quoted eloquently from Denialism: Are We Anti-Science, or Are We Inconsistent?, an interview of the author. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This seems to be wide spread enough a topic, that wikipedia should have an article pertaining to this subject. How in depth the article should be, is a completely different discussion. However, if it becomes to large in the future or becomes a forum for unpublished theoretical thought then deletion should be revisited. Outback the koala (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The references cannot be considered reliable or unbiased on the subject of "denialism".  They presume that disagreeing with certain causes that the author embraces represent an irrational "denialism" rather than reasoned counter-arguments.  In some cases there is only one topic, in others there are a set of topics.  But the sources are using controversial examples to push their points of view.  When they do mentioned well-established events that are the subject denial, it is merely to prop up their other cause to suggest, for example, that people who disagree with the causes or scope of global warming are "denialists" in the same sense as people who deny the moon landing or the Holocaust.  If we can find a good set of sources that are not dependent on controversial issues, then we should consider keeping the article.  Otherwise it needs to be deleted as it is simply a tool of propaganda pushers. Readin (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Readin says that the references "cannot be considered reliable or unbiased" because they use the word "denialism" in the cause of a particular point of view. Even if this is true, it is not a reason fro deleting the article. The concept exists, and is widely used, and therefore we should report the fact: whether we like or dislike the way the concept is used is not a reason for not mentioning it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The text of the Wikipedia article says "The term "climate change denialists" has also been applied to those who refuse to accept that climate change is occurring.[8][9][10][11] Several motivations for denial have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or simply as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas.[12][13]" The text has "climate change" while the sources say "global warming". Presumably this is because recent weather, being rather cool, has made "global warming" less popular and "climate change" the new term. The exact nature of this change remains open to question. Yet the sources overwhelming seek to portray anyone who doubted "global warming" as deniers of an indisputable truth. How can these sources be considered reliable and unbiased? Readin (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whether those sources are reliable on the subject of global warming/climate change is irrelevant. They are clearly good evidence concerning the existence and usage of the term denialism, and that is all that matters here! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think it's been clearly demonstrated, through various sources, that this is a notable word and concept. It is a 'neologism' in the sense that it's a word that was coined relatively recently, but that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it - this concept has become widely recognised pretty quickly. One can argue that the article is not perfectly neutral, and that it might contain elements of original research, but I don't think you can argue that it shouldn't exist at all. Robofish (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — The several sources listed in this AfD should be reinserted or more clearly highlighted within the article. The WP:SYNTH claims seem perjures or somewhat vindictive rather than substantive. The article is far, far from feature quality, but considerably better than many others here. It could be improved, but it fills an apparent niche that covers the more general topic of denialism. &mdash; Will scrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While about 20% of the editors expressing opinion here are for "delete" (9/45 by my count) the proportion of text arguing for "delete" is much higher - at a guess about 40%. This is largely because of a couple of editors (particularly, but not only, Unomi) repeating the same arguments over and over again, continually saying "WP:NEO" and "there are no sources", apparently oblivious of the sources which have been given and the answers given to WP:NEO, that is to say playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I should say that this is a first class example of denialism, and an excellent illustration that the concept does exist. What a pity that this Wikipedia discussion is not a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is indeed ironic: denial of denialism. Call it metadenialism, perhaps? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I am astonished that this debate has not yet been closed as keep, citing WP:SNOW! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the article has changed quite a lot during this AfD discussion, so many of the earlier comments were probably prompted by an older version of the text. Note, for example, that Unomi changed their opinion during the discussion and they now recommend that the article be kept. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Verbal, Tim Dickers, and ChrisO. Sources exist which demonstrate notability. Most notabily is the book that ChrisO brought up, which appears to define certain beliefs as "denialism" in a way comparable to this article. In the article, a careful distinction should be made between denialism and AIDS denialism, as the first is broader viewpoint than the second, and OR should be carefully avoided, as this article's topic is prone to it.  Them From  Space  23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into artificial controversy. It's notable, but it's a specific use of artificial controversy. -<span style="font:bold 10px Verdana;display:inline;border:#000066 1px solid;background-color:#ECF1F7;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">moritheil Talk 02:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.