Talk:Denialism/Archive 1

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

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

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

message: I'm pretty confident that this term is used almost exclusively in a pejorative sense - certainly that's the way I use it in relation to global warming denialists. AFAIK, denialists themselves almost always use alternative terms such as revisionist (in the case of the Holocaust), skeptic (AGW) or intelligent design theorist (evolution). Can you point to instances where the use appears favourable or neutral. Note that there's nothing wrong with using pejorative terms - as I've said I use this term myself - but we should be clear about it.  JQ 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's been no response on this, and the intro was becoming a mess of conflicting POV, I've gone ahead and reinserted the description of the term as pejorative. JQ 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. You've managed to add a viewpoint presented as fact, not a remove it. That the term is pejorative is most definately a particular viewpoint and completely subjective. Let's just stick to saying what it is, not how particular people perceive it in the intro. FeloniousMonk 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether a term is pejorative or not is determined by usage, and is a matter of fact. Can you list any positive or neutral uses of the term. For example, are there people who call themselves "global warming denialists" as opposed to, say, "global warming skeptics"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pejorative

message: A significant quantity of this essay is lifted from my site.  
Here is my post on denialism
http://www.giveupblog.com/2006/09/denialists.html
As you can see, my five criteria are more or less identical, including subdivisions.
I would hope that I be given some attribution if my list is going to be used.  While these ideas aren't unique to me, this 5-point classification was my minor innovation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quitter (talk • contribs) 19:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added as a source in the article. FeloniousMonk 21:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifted from my site 

message: I have searched various dictonaries and can't find the word at all. Should Wikipedia be coining new words when others do the job? It is badly written and confusing, classing Holocaust denial wth scientists who question the anthropogenc global warming hypothesis, for example. It gives a slanted viewpoint, so is politcally biased, and therefore unworthy of Wiki inclusion. Peterrhyslewis 19:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What distinguishes "denial" and "denier" from "denialism" and "denialist"? It looks like a distinction without a difference to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.216.222 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Denialism a Word?

message: Denialism is a word that's becoming very popular especially among science bloggers dealing with HIV/AIDS denialism, holcaust denial, evolution/creationism debates, microbial basis of disease denial etc.
The purpose isn't to "lump" people together and essentially create a guilt-by association attack.  The point is to describe a set of techniques used by people who have no scientific or factual basis for their claims to sow confusion and doubt into a field of inquiry.  It can be done for personal, political, religious or financial reasons.
The technique appears to have been first adopted by cigarette companies to sow confusion about the tobacco/cancer link.  See http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
for more tying the history of the technique to the tobacco companies.
By identifying the techniques by which people with no data and no facts can create controversy and confusion about topics on which there is a broad consensus, the hope is to prevent anti-scientific and anti-intellectual arguments from convincing people to believe in things which are obviously falsifiable.  Holocaust denial is good example of this, but so is the denial of the link between HIV and AIDS.  They use the same tactics to create confusion.  Hence scientists and sciencebloggers have begun to recognize the phenomena of denialism in their interactions with those who use emotionally appealing or confusing arguments to cast doubt on well-established and supported theories.  Search the scienceblog network for examples http://scienceblogs.com.
quitter 17:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is a word 

message: I share some (though not all) of the concerns that have been raised about the way the article is written. It seems to me that a good model for an article like this is the article on Political correctness. I've drafted an intro modelled on the intro for PC
:Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups interest groups or individuals who reject propositions that are, or are claimed to be, strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence, and seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. The term has been used in relation to holocaust denial, AIDS reappraisal,Harper's Publishes AIDS Denialist Richard Kim. The Nation, March 2, 2006. AIDS Denial is Pseudoscience Department of Physics 
Southern Methodist University. global warming denial, The denial industry George Monbiot. Guardian Unlimited, September 19, 2006. and the creation-evolution controversy. 
:The term "denialism" is normally used in a pejorative sense, since it carries the implication that the person or group concerned is denying evident truths (here I'd link to some refs above, all of which are critical of those labelled as denialists). Those described as denialists often use such terms as revisionist, skeptic or dissident in describing their own position.
If people like the general approach (or if no one objects), I'll be bold and put this intro in place of the existing one. If not, I'm happy to discuss a bit in the talk section.JQ 05:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible revision to intro

message: I have deleted global warming as a term to which denialism is attached, since it is clear from the global warming articles that this a topic disputed by many eminent scientists. Scepticism about the theory of global warming cannot and should not be classed with holocaust denialism.
Indeed, further on in the current article, it is not included. My deletion therefore removes the contradiction. Peterlewis 08:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody keeps reverting this change. Peter seems to be correct that GW is a controversy that should not be classed with holocaust denialism. However, the reverter does not contribute to this discussion. That editor seems to be edit-warring. 68.89.149.2 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: And it's well-sourced. JoshuaZ 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genuine Doubt

message: Wasn't it the Clinton administration who decided not to submit the Kyoto Protocol? That's what the Kyoto Protocol page says. The science adviser stuff is accurate, if not a sure-fire way of drawing NPOV complaints, however. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush has had the ability to submit it ever since taking office but has chosen not to. Clinton didn't stack the advisory ranks the way Bush has. There are plenty of sources for that point to fend off any POV attempts to whitewash the article of it. Odd nature 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't dispute that Bush has stacked the advisory ranks in a very unpalatable way. However, to mention that Bush did not submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification without mentioning that Clinton didn't submit it, either, seems misleading to me. There are so many other instances of denialism in the Bush White House, and this particular instance is debatable, IMO. I haven't read your sources, but do they specifically mention his failure to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification? If he had submitted it, do you think the Republican congress would have approved it? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto protocol 

message: I removed the link to this in the first paragraph. The insinuation that those taking the non-Richard Dawkins side in the controversy are 'denialists' has no source. Still, just because several bloggers and Op-Ed columnists have made the connection does not neccesarily mean that it must be mentioned in the article. 'Denialism' implies a bad-faith, ideologically based motivation that Michael Behe and other advocates don't have. The same is true for those inside the global warming controversy. Revolutionaryluddite 01:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based off arguments I have seen in Climate change denial, this seems to be the correct move. I'm not sure that Michael Behe doesn't have an bad-faith, ideologically based motivation, but I'm certainly not sure that he does, either. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Behe's bad faith was already aired at the Dover trial and is now a matter of public record. And we already have another notable source, the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" report, The dangers of creationism in education making the connection between denialism and creationism:  I have literally a dozen other equally weighty sources making the same claim, so it's been returned to the article. FeloniousMonk 14:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creationism, as defined by its article, is a blanket term including theistic evolution, young earth creationism, gap creationism, Intelligent Design. If you want to include reliable sources describing ID as 'denial' or 'denialism', than go ahead. But ID, 'creationism', and the 'creation-evolution controversy' are not synoymns. As far as Behe goes, I've reviewed his recent court case and the notion that he has recanted his views or admitted that his views are based on his personal biases is news to me. Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the validity of his arguements. Also, just because he is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he is a 'denialist'. Revolutionaryluddite 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Felonious, the article you cited said: "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe." and "We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up" and "Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights." and "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy." This is... well, incredible. There's a war on, and people like me have to pick a side. So, by their own mere existence, people who disagree with even a part of strict, non-theistic evolution is a danger to Western civilization. This would be funny in a 'Springtime for Hitler' sort of way, if the authors didn't honestly believe this. They also said "Alongside these different movements that come together under the heading of strict creationism, we also find so-called progressive creationism, which does not totally reject evolution but argues that creation necessarily involved successive divine interventions." So even some theistic evolutionists are 'evolution deniers'... Look, I agree that strict creationism up and including some types of Intelligent Design are 'in denial' over evolution, but the correlation should sourced to scientists. Revolutionaryluddite 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're way off base and speaking from personal opinion. Let's just stick to what the sources say, and the source FM added says: "While the most radical creationists adhere to a crude denialism by completely denying the scientific advances and discoveries concerning the evolution of species, other creationist movements proclaim themselves scientific, a claim that is completely contradictory." Clearly this supports the passage in the article that reads: "The term has been used in relation to 'holocaust denial', 'AIDS reappraisal', and 'climate change denial' and the creation-evolution controversy." Odd nature 17:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up. I accept that a partisan political statement by a French socialist on the danger posed by Christian fundamentalism based in America to Western democracy is a reasonable source. Revolutionaryluddite 20:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Odd nature: There's a difference between "other creationist movements" and "all other creationist movements". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Creation-evolution controversy" 

message: Per WP:V and WP:NOR we should only include topics here if we have reliable sources that give them as examples. So if something is referred to as "denial" or "denialism" we can do so. Otherwise it is very problematic. JoshuaZ 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PLoS article include HIV denial, creationism, Holocaust denial, mercury-autism crankery, and various others. Adam Cuerden talk 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder 

message: This article is not neutral in tone or content.  Note that it immediately starts with a source that is not really a dictionary or word source but rather an editorial work.  It then weakly characterizes the views of those who do not accept that term or label.  It describes Denialism as a form of propaganda, yet it provides no objective source for that description.  In addition it appears that this description may suffer from the logical error of "if A then B, B therefore A".  For example, while it is known that simply "denying" is a form of propaganda, it is also a form of informing or it is also form of communicating.  In addition, labeling someone as a "denialist" may ALSO be a form of propaganda and the article does not really address that side of the issue: it ASSUMES that denialism is a valid label.  In this regard, it seems that the article suffers from a sort of arrogance.  Gallileo proposed a policy that would not pass muster with the science or history of his day.  He "denied" the traditional science and history of the day, and even sought to have some degree of policy changes on that basis. Yet would it be right to call him a "denialist".  What of those who are "denialists" today who may yet be found to be correct?  The article should have a healthy NPOV neutrality on the matter and it does not. 
I see that I am not the first person to bring this up.  I think that if it has been a complaint in the past, there is a problem.  Where there is smoke there tends to be fire. --Blue Tie 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Where there is smoke there tends to be fire." Or tendentious objections. Not every smoldering talk page on Wikipedia is proof of a forrest fire. The article is accurate and well sourced. Please point us to the policy or guideline that requires topics to be based dictionary definitions or "word sources" (whatever that is), or to the one that proscribes editorial works being used as sources. Odd nature 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy you request is called "Reliable Source".  It is found at WP:RS.--Blue Tie 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree this article has huge problems, and I share Blue Tie's concerns. First, denialism does not even seem to be an English word, so it's merely a buzzword used on the internet, mostly by advocates of specific positions to disparage their opponents. It definitely is a constructivist derivative of the more scientific and neutral concept of denial, and the definition of denialism suggested by this article looks indeed like POVed OR (with merely a non-notable editoral to support it). And from there the floodgates open. --Childhood's End 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, there's quite a number newspapers, magazine and even scientific articles published that use it, reading the sources. I think your objections here are based on personal opinion and are clearly without grounds. FeloniousMonk 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, it is clearly without grounds to say that "Denialism" is not an English word, especially if you have magazines and newspapers using it whereas dictionnaries dont. --Childhood's End 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Odd nature 22:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non Neutral

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

message: I've been checking the sources added by RL to content he inserted. After reading each and every one, out of approximately 20 refs, only 2(!) actually supported the content they were given for. As pointed out by Guettarda earlier last week this misuse of sources is nothing new and it's gotten to the point that something needs to be done, as it appears to be going on elsewhere and being given a blind eye and green light by his cohort, BH and others. I think it's RFC time. Odd nature 18:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth are you talking about? I did not add 20 refs to this article. Revolutionaryluddite 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I added six sources in my contribution to the 'ideological denialism' section that has since been removed entirely. I added four in my contribution to the 'corporate denialism' section which have not been removed. That means there's 6 references you agree with out of the 10 I added to this article. Revolutionaryluddite 23:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that you were referring to something else. Nevermind. Revolutionaryluddite 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for taking the time to do this, odd nature. I've found a few more questionable piped wikilinks and such that I've fixed as well. We need to go through the other article he's active on next. I just fixed another attempt to bury/downplay mention and a link to denialism from the Climate change denial article. On top of that he's repeated tried to misattirbute the view to imply that it's only Op-Ed journalists who hold the view when he knows damn well that Newsweek ran the article The Truth About Denial in it's Science and Technology section . Definately not 'Op-Ed'. Amazing the stunts this guy tries to pull again and again. I'm starting to think you're right about a user conduct RFC. I'd endorse it. FeloniousMonk 01:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped back after RL asked me what an RfC was. You guys are really barking up the wrong tree here. I do encourage you "to go through the other article he's active on", but do so with an open mind. (While you're at it, go through his user page, his talk page, and my talk page.) Consider — and I mean really consider — that you could be wrong about him. About the only things RL and I have in common are that we're both relatively new (at least as far as active editing on my part), that we care about the environment, that we think that global warming is real and anthropogenic, that it seems that we're both willing to argue sub-points on their merits independent of the larger topic, and that it seems we both believe in "writing for the enemy" (see also: these common objections and clarifications) as a means towards achieving an NPOV. Oh, and that I, too, have been accused of some unusual things. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources are supposed to support content 

message: LexisNexis search on newspapers and magazines using the term "denialism", all available years.
Year            	Category1, 2                  	Category1, 2                  	Category1, 2                  	Category1, 2                  	Category1, 2                  	Category1, 2
Year            	Holocaust                     	AIDS                          	Creationism                   	Environment                   	Other/No context              	Total
1995            	1                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	1
1996            	1                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	1
1997            	1                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	1                             	2
1998            	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	0
1999            	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	0
2000            	4                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	123                           	16
2001            	0                             	0                             	0                             	0                             	93                            	9
2002            	1                             	1                             	0                             	24                            	5                             	9
2003            	1                             	6                             	0                             	0                             	10                            	17
2004            	0                             	11                            	0                             	0                             	1                             	12
2005            	0                             	40                            	0                             	0                             	8                             	48
2006            	1                             	38                            	0                             	25                            	16                            	57
1995-2006 Totals	10                            	96                            	0                             	4                             	576                           	172
2007 (so far)   	Someone else can sort these...	Someone else can sort these...	Someone else can sort these...	Someone else can sort these...	Someone else can sort these...	128
#Categories evaluated were chosen based on intro to denialism article.
#All numbers are based on the number of distinct LexisNexis entries, but there is some duplication since similar versions of the same story (or quote) may have been published more than once.
#All relate to historical revisionism with respect to atrocities against Austalian Aboriginals.  Some also make explicit comparisons to the Holocaust.
#Related to pollution
#Related to climate change
#Majority related to Aboriginal Australians.  Significant number related to non-AIDS African denial of political realities (e.g. crime, poverty)
So, denialism, as published by newspapers through 2006, is most likely to refer to HIV/AIDS denialism.  In second place is denial of atrocities against Australian aborigines (not even mentioned in the current article, for shame).  In third, is the actual Holocaust.  Followed by miscellaneous others including: pollution, climate change, poverty, Darfur genocide, Armenian genocide, the Iraq war, and various others.  No link of creationism to denialism was ever made.  Only a single reference to traditional conspiracy theories was made, in particular the moon landing "hoax".
Do I expect these results to influence anyone's opinions about anything?  No, I don't.  :-P  169.229.142.180 01:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says something else about "denialism" that there 500,000 google hits but only 300 newspaper/magazines uses.  136.152.153.36 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice original research, but it's not helpful here. As long as the view can be shown to be verifiable per WP:V and significant per WP:NPOV through reliable sources per WP:RS it will always merit mention via Wikipedia policy. If you have precise objections to specific sources those can be discussed, but your original research does not count as evidence. FeloniousMonk 05:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's quite helpful. 136.152.153.36 is absolutely right that (per WP:WEIGHT) we should mention denialism as it refers to Aboriginal Australians. See also WP:CSB. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A LexisNexis search, just like a Google search, is a search engine test, and so is not definitive for determining undue weight: " Search engines cannot: 1) Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" 2) Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance 3) Guarantee that the results reflects the uses you mean, rather than other uses. 4) Guarantee you aren't missing crucial references through choice of search expression. 5) Guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant. 6) Search engines often will not: Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects. Be neutral." WP:SET Odd nature 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know that. However, such a search can help us to look for other reliable sources that expand a topic in a direction that it needs to be expanded. I'm not bloody arguing that we should be citing the LexisNexis search. I'm merely stating that he raises a valuable point that we should include a discussion on Aboriginal Australians per WP:CSB. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure denialism in regards to aboriginal Australians may indeed warrant mention if sources are provided, but the degree to which remains TDB, and the OR search engine test will not be usefull in that regard. Odd nature 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denialism in LexisNexis 

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

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

text: The easiest distinction between simple skepticism and denialism is that the former position is held because of genuine doubts about the evidence whereas the latter is held on a bad faith rejection of evidence one knows to be true. Its the difference between good faith and bad faith representations. Odd nature 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the world of yet-another-definition-of-denialism, I would point out that bad faith is not a constituent part of the intro description in the article, nor several of the "forms" mentioned (e.g. do crackpots and creationists necessarily know their ideas are false).  136.152.153.36 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  denialism as a propaganda term 

message: Per WP:SPS:
:"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
:Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (emphasis in original)
The Hoofnagles' blog and associated "Deck of Cards" are self-published sources.  What foundation is there for claiming that they are established experts?  Unless their is evidence of their having third-party publications related to denialism, their blog should not be considered an acceptable source per WP:V.  136.152.153.36 21:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. It was first published in a journal: Denialists' Deck of Cards: An Illustrated Taxonomy of Rhetoric Used to Frustrate Consumer Protection Effort. Odd nature 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SSRN is not an journal, its a public document repository, ala the arXiv.  All you have to do to be included there is follow the "submit" link and fill out the form.  Things published in SSRN may have appeared in a journal but there is no notation to indicate that this did.  So still self-published.  136.152.153.27 00:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. I see no evidence it's strictly self-published. FeloniousMonk 04:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then where was it published other than his uploading it himself to an online repository?  Or perhaps I should upload an essay there and start citing it?  76.235.157.90 04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoofnagle is recognised as an expert on the subject.  SPS is a tool for distinguishing self-published experts from self-published non-experts.  Wikipedia policies aren't legal documents, you can't quote from them out of context.  Guettarda 05:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recognized by who?  His only academic publications are unrelated law review pieces, and as far as I can find he has never been quoted on "denialism" by any news organization.  Aside from the fact his self-published work is popular in the blogosphere, what evidence of expertise can you identify?  76.235.157.90 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so he was selected by Seed because he is a privacy expert?  I see.  How stupid of me.  Guettarda 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What other possible reason could an advertising supported blog network have for including a popular blogger?  I wonder.  76.235.157.90 06:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So...everyone else on the site is an expert, Hoofnagle is recognised as an expert on the subject but that wasn't Seed's motivation.  I see.  I take it you have sources for this?  And I suppose you don't consider the BBC a news organisation?  Since it took about 10 seconds to find that, I assume you have some sources that explain why the BBC does not consider Hoofnagle an expert on denialism, despite interviewing him in that capacity?  You seem to have access to some really great sources of information - would you please be so kind as to share them, or do you expect us to take your word for it, based on your brilliant prose?  Guettarda 08:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the BBC note.  That's one example.  I did not notice any (no quotations in newspaper archives, for example).  That's still a lot of expertise to infer from a single radio interview.  As to scienceblogs, I'd say teh contributors are experts if they can demonstrate traditional markers of expertise, e.g. third-party publications, "expert" interviews, etc.  I gather that most of the included people do have some track record of such, but if I understand correctly, they also include a significant number of non-traditional "experts" like graduate students, and contributors have free reign to decide what they talk about (i.e. no fact checking or other efforts to ensure overall quality).  So, no, I don't ascribe much evidence of established expertise to merely being a blogger included in their network.  76.235.157.90 15:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is that a no, you won't share your sources?  Guettarda 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoofnagles' 

message: This was removed:
:Activitists fighting AIDS reappraisal have described their application of the term as a "neologism".  According to sociologist and medical doctor Didier Fassin, it was the application of the term "denialism" to the AIDS conflicts that transformed the term from a rarely used concept reserved almost exclusively for genocide denial into a more commonplace usage.
Three dead tree, academic publications certainly provide a better basis for writing an article than the blogs many people are relying on.  76.235.157.90 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the very definition of a "tiny minority position" as mentioned at WP:UNDUE. Tiny minority positions need not be mentioned at all according to policy. Especially when the exist against strong evidence to the contrary, which is the case here. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's 5 academics in those 3 citations, how many does one need to overturn your mistaken conception of the history of "denialism"?  76.235.157.90 04:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then shame on them for not doing their homework and discovering the prior usage. I wouldn't be touting that record. FeloniousMonk 04:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a notable point of view that the AIDS denialism movement meaningfully changed the way the term was used.  I have provided sources, you just don't like the conclusion.  76.235.157.90 04:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That they made any change to the meaning of the term is OR, not supported by the source. At best they simply applied the already existing concept of denialism to their cause. That in no way can be taken as a meaningful change in the definition of denialism. FeloniousMonk 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked at them?  The first two say, literally, a) "The term ‘denialism’ is a neologism" and b) "‘denialism’ is a neologism".  76.235.157.90 05:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've read them both. The first stands in contrast to preexisting evidence, and the second doesn't say what you claim it does. That one, Didier Fassin's When Bodies Remember Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa makes it clear on page 13 that others simply applied the already existing concept of denialism used in the same manner in regards to racism and genocide to AIDS. Your sources do not support your change. FeloniousMonk 05:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want pages 115-116 where Fassin discusses the transformation from a rarely used term to a "commonplace".  76.235.157.90 05:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've already read those pages. That's far too ambigous to support as ambitious a claim as that, as well as flying in the face of preexisting evidence (sources provided here show the term in print in 1927 and 1968). And I've also read the relevant bits of State of the Nation: South Africa 2003-2004. Though it does support the view of activists countering AIDS denialism describing the application of the term as a neologism], again, that is the view of a tiny minority. Wikipedia policy requires us to present the most reliable and accurate sources. Those that do not jibe with other reliable sources do not pass WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Wikipedia policy says tiny minority views need not be presented at all WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The fact that these two claims, that AIDS denialism is a neologism, and that the term was rarely used prior to that usage, are tiny minority claims and are uncorroborated outside of their geographically, academically and sociologically narrow arenas, simply raises too many flags. Not the least of which is WP:UNDUE. FeloniousMonk 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of policy fabrication is this? First, there can be no "tiny minority view" about the meaning of denialism since the meaning of denialism is not the subject of an overwhelming, worldwide consensus. It's not even in the dictionnaries. Further, this word has been used only sparingly since the 90's, and what was meant by the 2 occurences that have been found prior to that is left to speculation. The sources found by this IP user can certainly present a valid alternative and if WP:WEIGHT is the fake reason given to refuse their inclusion, I of course object. --Childhood's End 11:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: FeloniousMonk: I agree (now) that the one source is wrong. This is my POV. However, Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth. In the light of the other information provided (e.g., the 1927 ref), do you not trust the reader to draw their own conclusion?  On the other source, 76.235.157.90, I agree with FeloniousMonk that it's not claiming that denialism is a neologism. It's merely arguing that it has recently become more commonplace. Not the same thing. If poikilotherm suddenly became commonplace, that would not make it a neologism. (Yes, poikilotherm is one of my favorite words.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you actually disagree with: "According to sociologist and medical doctor Didier Fassin, it was the application of the term 'denialism' to the AIDS conflicts that transformed the term from a rarely used concept reserved almost exclusively for genocide denial into a more commonplace usage"?  Whether or not you call that change a "neologism", per se, the source does say that denialism went from a term almost always associated with genocide to one more commonplace, which is exactly what I said.  76.235.157.90 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Felonious Monk is declaring that a position is a tiny minority view, yet he has not produce ANY RS, cited evidence contradicting the statements of the academics or showing that it is a tiny minority view.  Felonious Monk is engaged in OR. --Blue Tie 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, according to policy the burden of evidence lies with 76.235.157.90 He's the editor who added material that contradicts more consistant sources. Read WP:PROVEIT Odd nature 18:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh.. I think he DID prove it. Gave reliable sources.  From the discussion I see no reliable sources contradicting that view.  Where is the reliable source that it is NOT a neologism? I haven't seen anyone produce one. --Blue Tie 18:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. Sources have already been provided that use the term in 192719681996. And that's exactly why 76.235.157.90's sources saying it's a neologism are of dubious value, they are contradicted by  incontrovertible evidence that it's not a neologism. Odd nature 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What you are doing is original research.  Reliable sources specifically said it was a neologism.  You, on the other hand, have decided that its being used in 1927 makes it not a neologism.  However, THAT is original research, plain and simple per wikipedia policies. Interestingly enough, even if you produce a statement that says "A word used in 1927 is no longer a neologism" and another statement that "Word XYXZ was used in 1927", you cannot thusly conclude that XYXZ is a is NOT a neologism per wikipedia policies.  This is explicitly declare to be OR.  Yet you do not have a source that even says "A word used in 1927 is no longer a neologism", yet you just assume it.  That is OR.--Blue Tie 19:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't be more clear. --Childhood's End 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or wrong. Read WP:PROVEIT. Odd nature 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read this rule EVERY TIME you have asked me to.  When I read it, I think: the anon met this challenge.  But the people who declare this to NOT be a neologism have NEVER produce ONE SINGLE VERIFIED STATEMENT to that effect. You are the one who needs to prove it.  The anon has done the proof. --Blue Tie 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is you who decided that one occurence in 1927 and then another in 1968 makes it that a term which has only begun being used sparingly in the 90's is not a neologism. But I dont expect you to realize that you're performing OR here again. --Childhood's End 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: And I have pointed out that unless you can find a source that says the word is NOT new, you are performing original research to declare that it is not new.  Who says that a word used in 1927 is not new?  Particularly if it has change since then? --Blue Tie 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we aren't declaring it's not new, we're simply not including disproven material. Adam Cuerden talk 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 76.235.157.90: I do not disagree with the sentence, but I do disagree with it being in that particular paragraph, unless the paragraph is rewritten to include a broader perspective. As it stands right now, the paragraph appears to be about whether or not the term is a neologism with that sentence meant to support that claim. I really don't feel that strongly about it, and am now bowing out of this conversation as I think I know where it's going and I don't want to go there again. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting well-referenced material?