Talk:Denialism

message: As far as I can tell, Reference 1 is a newspaper book review of Reference 19, which is itself a journalist's account. Therefore, this article does not actually appear to cite any standard "psychological" definition of denialism (I have searched in vain for such a thing).  While there are clearly an array of examples of organized prevarication and/or overeager, self-serving credulity that can be gathered under some generic heading, how do we proceed if "denialism" is effectively a pseudoscientific claim in itself, or just a popular meme, rather than a formally documented, diagnosable behavior or tendency? If one follows the chain of references far enough, most of the concept is ultimately based on blog posts by the brothers Hoofnagle (e.g., Refs 12 and 34), each of whom has impressive credentials —— just not in psychology or sociology, as might be expected. Alas, some of them even loop back to this Wikipedia article. Anekeia (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference troubles and an underlying concern 

message: Denial as a political and defense strategy is both IRL widespread and non properly covered on Wikipedia ifaik. Trump, but also Biden, Macron, Putin, all use it to spread doubt event when solid observables (=facts) are presented. The communicative, political, strategic side of denial deserves better coverage. Yug (talk) 🐲 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yug  This article has added a paragraph about the electoral conspiracy.  The U.S. political movement driven by that conspiracy is described in Election denial movement in the United States.  But it's a conspiracy that has a long history in global elections. rootsmusic (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deny, deny, deny" (defense strategy, politics) 

message: Herbalism / Traditional Chinese medicine / alternative medicine - Millennia of experimentation, sheafs of studies, but it gets shut down a lot by some Western (for example) cultures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.167 (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an example of denialism. If anything is scientifically verified & medically useful, it's just "medicine." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Herbalism is a mixture of genuine and bogus remedies. TCM is 90% junk that’s useless at best and dangerous at worst. Alternative medicine is a huge field that can range from genuinely helpful to outright deadly. “Millenia of experimentation” means nothing without the scientific method. There’s no connection between any of these to “denialism”. Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dronebogus, exactly, as @HandthatFeeds said, it's just "medicine", I really don't think it's useful enough (IMHO), in fact it has absolutely no connection, unless they have connection, and we don't know regard it (Probably it's gonna take a while to reach in some consensus, anyway, gonna wait) 177.105.90.20 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

text: From what I can gather from what you said, you basically meant that alternative medicine can be both helpful and dangerous, "de facto", it really depends on how it is used, if it is used on manners, Ok!, if it is not, it's totally dangerous for humankind, and with it, we see how good and not-good can walk each other, and how that's REALLY not good at all. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current example