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 no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism[edit]

Denialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Denialism: Orwellian words for the 2000's. This article opens an epistemological can of worms. This is not consistent with the purposes of Wikipedia.

I believe this whole article is simply well-disguised original research. From the Wikipedia viewpoint, the article violates the WP:NOR as well as indeirectly violating the WP:POV policies (the existence of this article would seems to amplify "anti-denialism" propaganda, closing a self-justifying loop.) Also, reliable sources do not usually include mere blogs. From a functionalist viewpoint, the problem with "denialism" as a concept, and as an encyclopedic entry, is that it promotes poisoning the well: denouncing a view as denialism or its proponent as a denialist has the effect of leading to judgement before inquiry. Using User:Quitter's own words against him:

Hence scientists and sciencebloggers have begun to recognize the phenomena of denialism in their interactions with those who use emotionally appealing or confusing arguments to cast doubt on well-established and supported theories.

we see this very kind of thinking. "Well-established" might mean theories which actually are demonstratable beyond reasonable doubt, or it might mean uncontested propaganda. Which is which?

• Global warming is climatological / recent trend
• AIDS is caused by/not caused by HIV
• Holocaust was a systematic / happenstance killing of 6 / 2 million Jews
• Evolution versus ... whatever

--Otheus 18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just at a glance my main concern would be that I don't see much in the way of reliable sources for this article. Keep in mind that blogs don't normally count as "reliable publishers". Ultimately, the article has to provide some references to reliable publishers as described in WP:V in order to verify that the term isn't simply a neologism and that the information in the article about the term isn't original research and is also accurate. Dugwiki 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The word and the concept appear to be legitimate (49,200 Google hits), but this article smacks of OR. This article would need to be tagged for better sources or stubbed to remove any potential OR and/or POV content. ObtuseAngle 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This really does seem like WP:OR. The sources seem less than directly supportive of the current existence and use of the term and more like, surprise! sources supporting an original synthesis. Unless there's more specific cites of it, I'm reluctant to let it stand as is. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep It does need some references, but the references to use will inherently be NPOV on that particular topic, or else a recapitulation of the debate. The article itself need not be, for there are cases where the denialism is against something which turns out to have been false. A bad argument by bald assertion against the false can be denialism--either a stout denial that there is evidence for evolution, or a stout denial that there is evidence against--there can be both, & one of them will be correct, regardless of how illogical the argument may be. DGG 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The author of the article was a Wiki admin (and had been for quite a while). It would seem the admin would "know better". --Otheus 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Turns up 52,900 google hits. Needs some sourcing though. Suriel1981 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deny this article until reliable sources are given, as "denialism" could mean any number of things and most of the search results appear to be blog entries. If this is indeed a notable term, mention it at propaganda or disinformation, and take it from there. –Pomte 01:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a real term, and it very relevant to the current debate on Global warming, evolution, HIV "reappraisal", holocaust denial... and there's a well-established trend of the same people denying most of the above (like my senator; lucky me!). Guettarda 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Geuttarda and DGG, common term but the OR needs to be removed and better sourcing given. JoshuaZ 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per WP:NEO. There are tons of google hits out there but they're all (as far as I could find) examples of use, not discussion of use as is required by WP:NEO. In other words, OR. Furthermore, as the nominator points out, this is a term that doesn't refer to a specific group or philosophy but is rather a way of deriding someone else's opinion, so the article doesn't seem accurate either. Mangojuice^talk 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems to be a neologism. Regardless, the article itself is overly vague. It's not a specific concept, but rather a broad definition which could apply to several entirely different topics. It's also terribly sourced. Nothing gives us a distinct definition of denialism past the idea that denialism is about denying things. .V. _[Talk|Email] 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is someone here in denial re the word's value? •Jim62sch• 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the word would be more suited toward Wikitionary than here. .V. _[Talk|Email] 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.