Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:35, 13 October 2009

Alternative views C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Nov 2006 – Feb 2008 Mar 2008 – Jun 2009

xyz denialism

If we are going to list various titles with the word denialism in them then the sources should use the term and they should be reliable sources. It is easy to find reliable sources that use the term "AIDS denialism" but the only Google book, or scholar source, I could find for "vaccine denialism" was one which quotes this article "United Nations Overpopulation Denial Conference exploring the underside of climate change (Draft)" there are total of three papers for "climate change denialism" including the Draft that quotes this page, and "evolution denialism", and only the Draft that quotes this page.

It may be that there are some reliable sources on the net itslf (news papers etc) for example I did a search on "evolution-denialism" and Google returned a Time article Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools but it turned out that the phrase "evolution-denialism" was only in the blog entries attached to the article.

I suggest that the sentence is rewritten to something link this "The term has been used with 'holocaust denialism', and 'AIDS denialism'. Other scientific facts and theories underpinning vaccination, climate change, and evolution, have also been subject to attacks by people who deny the the validity of the underlying science." As the sources supplied such as this one support such wording. --PBS (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

I have found a source that gives a definition for denialism. "denialism is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of an historical experience or event." (A Cross Too Heavy: Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943 by Paul O'Shea, Rosenberg Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1877058718. p.20). Unless a source can be found for the first sentence in the article I suggest that we replace the current definition with this one. If other definitions can be found then they can be summarised into a more complete definition but until such time as that is done this one can be used in quotes.--PBS (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Is anthropogenic global warming, err uh I mean climate change, an "historical experience or event"? I think not. Of course, it's no wonder that the editors of this article -- over the course of it's nearly three year of existence -- are having trouble establishing a definition. Covering all the ground that they claim the term covers as a discrete phenomenon -- from the Holocaust to global warming to AIDS to evolution to vaccination -- is no easy task. In reality, canvassing how the word is used with any semblance of NPOV, shows that it's a pejorative used in polemics, plain and simple. And clearly, anyone who disagrees with me is merely engaging in, err uh, denialism. ô¿ô 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice blanket ad-hom. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See Irony. Duh... ô¿ô 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See /Archive 2#A neutral point of view "What I am concerned with is that this article does not even hint at the fact that the word denialism is not a common word, and that its use can be a trick of rhetoric. It can be used a trick of rhetoric, because it allows the author to frame the debate. ..." --PBS (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in the Oxford English Dictionary

See previous discussion /Archive 2#Denialism psychoanal

I think it needs noting that this word does not appear in the OED. --PBS (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And that thread demonstrated that you didn't have support for that thought. I see no reason whatsoever to reopen the matter again. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no harm in continuing a discussion were there was not a consensus. I think it is important to note that this is not a commonly used word, and does not have a dictionary agreed definition. Do you think that is not a valid point that needs inclusion in some way? --PBS (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was that nobody agreed with you. This is simply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 18:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. PBS, you are the only editor who feels this should be included. No one else agrees, hence concensus is against you. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You both argued that it was against Wikpedia policy not that it was a bad idea in itself to mention that it not a word used in dictionaries. I thought we were disusing ways in which such information could be included within policies, not that you thought it was detrimental to mention it in the article. Do either of you object to mentioning the fact that it is not a word include in the major general dictionaries, or just that to date we have not been able to agree on wording to incorporate that information? --PBS (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, and basic good editing, was and is again against you on this. Verbal chat 11:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear from that answer if you mean that you do not approve of incorporating this information or if you do not think that the information is pertinent to this article. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can bring what I and others asked for in the previous thread (hint: RS stating this is notable), then I'll consider that. You've brought nothing new, consensus was clear, and this thread has been correctly called by Hrafn. Verbal chat 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad idea until we can find reliable sources that show this is imporant to the term. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? --PBS (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Whoops wrong section --PBS (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The every-editor-except-you consensus here and previously, and the consensus of the wikipedia community in forming the relevant guidelines and policies. Those ones. Verbal chat 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

"Individuals, or groups ..." it has been over a month since a quote on the talk page was requested from the supporting citations on the talk page for the second paragraph. If quotes to support the paragraph are not provided soon I will removed the paragraph. --PBS (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see two footnotes, so I've removed the cn tag and the misused quote tags. Verbal chat 11:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Request quotation. Please explain why you think the quote tags were misused. --PBS (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two sources. What do you expect from a quote? What do you dispute? Verbal chat 11:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect quotes on the talk page to be from the cited sources which clearly support the wording in the second paragraph. I am not sure why you should remove the requests that have been there for over a month and are not unreasonable requests, particularly as I have not acted on the requests but given other editors plenty of time to find and quote the sources. I will reinstate the requests into the article so that other people can see that this has been requested while it is discussed on the talk page. --PBS (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not take a lot to find an open source that can help to support the sentence. For example quick, Google of the phrase "denialism refutes science conducted by thousands of researchers" turns up a number of unreliable sources and this on in Google books: Seth C. Kalichman, Nicoli Nattrass Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy‎, page 38. I am sure with more searching I could find more. But I had assumed that whoever had placed the citations in the article would have access to them. This is part of WP:PROVIT ("burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"), and the best way to get an article properly cited is to ask for accurate citations. Where the text of a citations are not available to all editors, to have the text in those citations quoted on the talk page if it is requested is not unresonable. User:Verbal instead of edit warring over my tags asking for improvements, why not look around for reliable sources to back up the sentences, or quote the relevant text in this section those which are already there? --PBS (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are specific citations to journals for that statement. Why do you need actual quotes, and why didn't you check the journals to provide them yourself? — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that the sources support the sentences? Have you read the sources? If so can you quote the portions of the articles that support the Misplaced Pages sentence? If not why remove the templates asking for quotes to support the Misplaced Pages sentence? I have not read them because they are both available online but only through subscription, and as most people who wishes to check if the sources support the statement will also have to pay to view, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for a quote from the citations to support the sentence. If the sentences had been written and a citation had been given at the same time, it is more likely that the source supports a sentence. But when a sentence is written months before the first citation was given by a different editor to those who wrote the initial sentences (without changing a word when the citation was given), it is not unreasonable to ask for a quote on the talk page to show which sentences support the sentence in Misplaced Pages. --PBS (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:V does not require that the source be free. If you really want to verify what they say, you can either pay the fee, or ask someone else to obtain a copy for you. And, let's be frank: if I wanted to lie, I could just make up a quote and say it's from the paid source. You'd never know without looking it up yourself (or getting someone else to). That's why placing a quote seems pointless to me, and is not required by WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to lie? If you have access to the sources please quote the relevant sections. If not do you not want the citations to be accurate, and how do you know that they are accurate given that the persons who added them did so without altering the text that already existed by a word, it is possible that they were mistaken and a quote on this page would fix that. Why did you remove my requests for quotes on the talk page and another citation, given that unless someone who is contribution to this page has access to the cited sources we can not know that they are accurate? For example it was clear from the sources available for the third paragraph, that the previous statement "The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism'" was not supported by the citations, so unless someone has access to the sources, for the second paragraph we can not be sure that the sources accurately support the current sentence unless someone is willing to provide the necessary quotes here on the talk page. --PBS (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• facepalm* You completely missed my point. WP:V exists because you're not supposed to take our word for it that the source says what we claim it does. Just putting in quotes doesn't solve the issue. It's not up to us to prove it to you; you should be relying on your own research. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what I have said. So I'll break it down into sections. What do you think is the purpose of the template {{Request quotation}}? --PBS (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

← From the template: "This is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online or are difficult to obtain in order to check the editor's interpretation..." The source cited is available online and easily obtained. It doesn't count as "difficult to obtain" simply because they require a subscription fee to access. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So you do not think that are difficult to obtain, but I do as to pay for ever single source that needs to be checked is not economic or practical. Do you have access to these two sources? --PBS (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If I paid for them, I would. This is an age-old argument on Misplaced Pages. Consensus is that information behind a paywall is not a reason to discount a source. Just like you might not want to pay for books to verify citations, paying for web access is not a burden that fails Misplaced Pages's standards. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read these two sources? --PBS (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. Real life is taking priority over that right now. Have you? — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No which is why I am asking for the quote. As I pointed out the citations were retrofitted to the text long after it was written, I do not think it unreasonable to ask for quotes to verify that the sources back up the statements. If you have not read them then you can not know if they do. --PBS (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to go to a library yourself if you're unwilling to trust anyone who says they support the text. Verbal chat 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you read either of the papers? --PBS (talk)

Has anyone said that they support the text? --PBS (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal it is not disruptive to ask for verification of a citation. Have you read either of the papers? --PBS (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

← It is disruptive when you repeatedly spam a talk page witht he same question, especially when it's already been answered. The onus is on you to verify the information for yourself, and a quote is unnecessary. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not disruptive to request quotations on the talk page. It is not disruptive to ask someone who is removing such requests if they have read the articles. I am surprised that if you have not read the articles, that you would not like to check that the Misplaced Pages article reflects accurately what the sources state, as you must have followed the links which I provided to the history of the article to show that the citations were added many months after the sentences and that the sentences were not altered in any way to reflect the sources. --PBS (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is disruptive to repeatedly make the same demands. And I will check out those articles, but I do have a life outside Misplaced Pages (the last week of which was spent on vacation without Internet access). Your tendentiousness is becoming quite tiresome. The simple fact remains: quotations are useless in this situation. Until you read the articles in question, you cannot verify that any of it is true. Even if I were to provide quotations, why would you just believe me? — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I not believe you? The quotations would allow anyone who reads the talk page or its archives to verify that the articles support the statement made in the Misplaced Pages article. My reading of WP:PROVEIT does not suggest that I am being disruptive asking for prof that a statement in a Misplaced Pages article is valid. Placing tags on the page and giving other editors time to validate the statement is not disruptive behaviour. If after a reasonable length of time the information can not be verified there is no reason why the statement should not be removed from the article until such time as verification is made. You have not read the citations, neither have I and as User:Verbal has expressed an opinion on this issue it is not unreasonable to ask if User:Verbal has read the articles. --PBS (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? I could make up any quotation I wanted to support the citation, and you wouldn't know if you didn't read the source material yourself. Until you do that, you won't know, so why don't you just do that and save us all a lot of headache? I'm done debating this WP:POINT of yours, and if you continue to be disruptive I will escalate warnings about it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith amoung editors. I assume that editors may make mistakes (the reason for asking for the quotes to verify that they have not made a mistake), but I would not assume that an editor would deliberately make up quotes to deceive other editors. If you say that you have read the articles and quote the relevant sections on this page, I will believe that the quotes are genuine. In the mean time I will continue to ask for the quotes to be provided, because it is better that Wikipeia has no information than wrong information. --PBS (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not assuming good faith that the citations are correct? For the last time, if you want to verify the information, do it yourself. Replacing the quotation tags at this point will be considered vandalism and reported as such. — The Hand That Feeds You: 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits which are made in good faith are not vandalism.

Someone can add a citation in good faith without it being correct. For example the sentence in this article that started "The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism'" the citations given for that did not explicitly state that that was the first use . It was the first use recorded in the sources given, and it was an easy mistake to make, but the sources did not actually say that this was the first use (I'm guessing but it is more likely that denialism was first used in one of those turgid Marxist papers that were written in stilted English translated from German or Russian some time before WWII). Or should we have left the claim "The term was first used in the sense of ..." just because it was added in good faith even if the citations do not support it? --PBS (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edits made tendentiously in the face of consensus are vandalism. I'm tired of banging my head against this particular wall. If you're really determined on this point, file an WP:RFC for outside input. — The Hand That Feeds You: 16:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

<--User:HandThatFeeds, you are reverting against WP:PROVIT, See the sentence "The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article." and the footnote that immediately follows it "When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference". I have pointed out that the sources were added to the sentence months after the sentences were added to the article, with no modification of the sentences to fit the sources. Now it may be that the sources perfectly fit the article text, but it is not unreasonable to seek clarification that the sources back up the text as written. You have said on this talk page that you have not read the source, yet you are removing a request for clarification. Why are you doing that? --PBS (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:PROVIT even states repeatedly a that citations are required, multiple times. The footnote says that quotes are a courtesy, not a requirement. Again, you are Wikilawyering when you could just read the damn thing yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You: 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference". Seems to me that based on this text from WP:PROVEIT As I have requested quotes it is not up to you to remove those requests. --PBS (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy. Not requirement. You've made your requests very clear, and if you want something other than the consensus currently here, file an RFC as I suggested. — The Hand That Feeds You: 01:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What consensus? --PBS (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll refer to Verbals reply to you in your misplaced post above. No one on this page has agreed with you. Consensus has been that your requests are not relevant to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 02:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As this conversation has revolved around three people discussing a point, that is hardly a consensus one way or another. In the last 500 edits all you have done is undo other editors edits, and apart from reverting others edits all I can find that Verbal has done is this one edit. Why is it that you will not allow this article to be developed further? As you have not read the sources I am questioning. Why not find some that do support the sentence or make some other positive contribution to the article? --PBS (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You could say I'm impartial and univolved. Please bring RS and suggest improvements you'd like to make. Probably best if you do that in a new section, and not reopen recent debates (such as this, and the dictionary one) Verbal chat 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is my intention to work through the article paragraph by paragraph. I have already been through paragraph 1 and paragraph 3. So back to paragraph two. Have you read the two sources that are currently attached to paragraph two? --PBS (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why Philip Baird Shearer (who signs "PBS") is taking this obstructive line. Is any of the statements in the article disputed? If not then to take the line "Misplaced Pages policy is that the onus is on you to provide and verify sources" is empty wikilawyering: policies exist to serve a purpose, and in this case the purpose is to resolve doubt in the case of disputed claims. If, on the other hand, Philip Baird Shearer does dispute some of the statements, then it would be far more helpful to state exactly what he disputes and why. At least one of the tags for verification which he has placed is actually on a source which is fully and freely available online, so he could easily check it if he wanted to, so why does he instead tag it for verification? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Which source is on line? -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On reading that question I went back to the article to see. The very first reference that I saw tagged for verification turned out to be available. Presumably anyone else could have found it as easily as I did. I can only repeat he could easily check it if he wanted to. I will give a link to this one, but I am not spending any more time on checking for others: you can do so as easily as I can, and I have already wasted enough time on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which paragraph in that sources do you think covers "Common forms of denialism arising from ideologies..." for any of these areas of research Holocaust, Holodomor, AIDS, the vaccines, and evolution? Because I could not find in that source any paragraph that covers the first phrase and even if it did I could not find any sentence that mentions "Holodomor denial" (as one example) in that reference. -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read my comments carefully you will see that I said that the source was available for anyone to verify whether or not it supports the statements in the article. I did not say that I had done that verification, nor have I: I have spent too long already on this rather unhelpful discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that you had verified anything. But I assumed that as the template used was {{verification needed}}, that you know it says "Use this inline template tag to label text which appears doubtful or false and to request source verification. ... In general, add this template only after a good faith attempt to verify information has been made." I have read the source and I do not think it supports the sentence, but I may not be correct, hence my question to you, because it seems that the way forward is to use this template when the source does not seem to back up the statement in the article, rather than immediately deleting the sentence (WP:PROVEIT). Using this tag allows editors who are interested in the article, to explain how the source supports the statement, either by removing the tag, in which case I will ask them to explain how it does so (just as I have asked you), or by finding a source that does support the statement. Note the changes I have made to the first an third paragraphs in the lead. In the first case I replaced the paragraph with a new one which was supported by a source, and in the third one I rewrote it so that the wording is supported by the source. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have access to Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? The following is a quote from it which seems to support the statement it's used to cite: "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none." I'm about to go catch a train so I don't have time to read the whole paper (or the whole of the above argument, fun as I'm sure that would be). If anyone would like me to check anything else in the paper, give me a note on my talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That covers the second half of the sentence but do they cover the main assertion "Individuals, or groups ... are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes"? Because AFAICT individual or groups who "reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists", are engaged in denialism when they use "rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." whatever the motive for doing so. Do the sources cover the first half of the sentence?

There is a further problem with this sentence as one can be a revisionist scientist who "reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists" and still be correct, for example those scientists who reject a paradigm before a paradigm shift takes place. Denial is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality, not the rejection of a academic consensus, unless one rejects the concept of paradigm shifts (would that make one a denialist?). An example of the former is David Irving's comment "I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war." and example of the latter is Einstein before his new views became the scientific orthodoxy. So although Hoofnagle brothers may make the claim, it is only true if the arguments are "just rhetorical tactics" (at one point Irving said that the gas chambers at Auschwitz killed no-one, when challenged over this he said he was correct because the ones that exist there now were built after the war -- which is an good example of a rhetorical trick that this sentence rightly disparages), but I think that the current construction of the sentence, is misleading (one could say a rhetorical trick) and needs to be rewritten based on just the sources. --PBS (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Davis, I see that you have replied to a posting in the next section after this date. Have you had time to check to see if the first part of the sentence is supported by the sources? --PBS (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I glanced at this section and saw my name was the last item here without realising you'd replied above it. I haven't had time to check, no (I was deprived of internet access all last week); I'll reply if and when I do. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I can check if my institution has access to any other journals which are causing problems. I haven't done so but let me know if it'd be helpful. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If no-one can confirm that that the first part of the sentence is supported by the sources. I propose to remove it. It can always be replaced once the sources have been read and it can be confirmed that they support the sentence. -- PBS (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the consensus above. I suggest WP:IGNORE be invoked here as well. Verbal chat 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of article for deletion

• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles