Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 1

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Nov. 2004 and Dec. 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Merger
The distinction between Revisionist history and Historical revisionism is not objective, but rather based on POV. Also, this article is shockingly biased against Revisionist history. Sam [Spade] 13:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that it is not even talking about Historical revisionism at all, but a different phenomenon that often masquerades as Historical revisionism. Jayjg 19:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the distinction is POV. "Masquerades" is especially difficult, since all Historical revisionism is is the re-evaluation of history. How can you say 1 person is "pretending" to re-evaluate, whilst the other is "honestly" re-evaluating? Its a matter of opinion whose evaluation is to be respected, esp. when they are possessing of the needed credentials. Sam [Spade] 20:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I made a compromise suggested in Talk:Historical revisionism. Sam [Spade] 19:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, whilst of a radically different POV from mine, at least agrees that this distinction is a POV fork (see Wikipedia guideline:content forking). However, our difference of appreciation is in the "also, this article is shockingly biased against revisionist history"... Lapaz

Negationism should be merged here. Lapaz 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical semanticism
There is a genuine reason for differences here, although I am not really trying to take sides. The earliest people referred to as "revsionists" with regard to the writing of history that I am aware of are the American "revisionists" of the 1920s and 1930s. There general thesis was that what they had been taught about the American past, particularly the 19 century, was largely wrong. Specifically, they denied that Lincoln, Douglas, Davis, Seward, Lee, Grant and perhaps even the previous generation of Webster, Hayne, Clay, and Calhoun, were great leaders and great statesmen caught up in the tides of the times and the great issue of slavery that led inevitably to the American Civil War. They taught instead that these people were inflexible, uncompromising ideologues whose temprements caused an avoidable war over slavery to be fought unnecessarily and that slavery and all other North-South conflicts could have been resolved through peaceful means had competent, moderate leaders been in charge. The title of a book in this vein, The Blundering Generation, says a lot about the thesis of this group. Many of the historians of this era had been in World War I; this resolved in their minds forever if war could ever somehow have been the right course, let alone glorious.

Whether this group has correctly interpreted history or not is certainly debatable; what is not debatable is that their ideas were radical for the times in which they expressed them. Many resented them and saw "revisionism" as wrong, even "evil". But these early revisionists did not deny the essential facts. None of them claimed, for example, that the shelling of Ft. Sumpter ever really occurred. Nor did they state that slavery did not really exist nor say that it was in reality almost without any abuses. So it is unfair to say that "historical revisionism" is always wrong or always an attempt to rewrite history to reflect things that did not actually occur, or to deny things which did. The difference between this "legitimate" form of historical revisionism, which has since led to the reintrepretation (but not the denial) of many other facts and events of history, and the "history" purported by Holocaust deniers, is apparently the difference intended by different articles on "historical revisionism" and ''revisionist history", the idea being that the latter term describes something almost invairably illegitimate, and the former something with potential legitimacy.

Rlquall 17:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting background and history, hopefully that can make its way in to the article. Very appropriate and helps clarify the "Origin" of the term. I'd be happy to cut and paste unless you would like to add additional.


 * A discussion on whether to call it "historical revisionism (political)" or "revisionist history" is appropriate. The concern was that we, as authors, are creating a new term "revisionist history" by nameing the article such. Even though it is being used in a general sense here, by nameing the article such, it is seen as NPOV and creating somthing (a defined term) that previously didnt really exist. Thus, it was kept under the "historical revisionism" heading with a "political" tag added.Stbalbach 17:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please give the names of any respected living historians affiliated with the Communist Party, USA.

Nonsense!
Get your story straight,This is exactly what the Holocaust Lobby does
 * 1) The selective use of facts.
 * 2) The denial or derision of known facts.
 * 3) The assumption of unproven facts.
 * 4) The fabrication of facts.
 * 5) The obfuscation of facts.
 * 6) The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
 * 7) The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts.
 * 8) Constant attack against those disputing their views.

Revisionist critizise the use of sources. Come up with new ones and examine the arguments already given. Check it for yourself: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html

Millions of people were discovered to be gone and the holocaust is the only reasonable explanation. Fred Bauder 14:15, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) They might have gone to the jungles in thailand to join the 10 lost tribes. --Sam of clubs 23:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed
"Please help by reporting disputed passages and terms on the talk page." -- Philip Baird Shearer 15:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed after waiting 24 hours for a report.
 * I suggest that any NPOV is flagged with in the section which is has disputed NPOV using "The neutrality of the section of the article is disputed". -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. The introduction in itself is dubious and discussed: "Historical revisionism is often a legitimate effort in which historians seek to broaden the awareness of certain historical events by re-examining conventional wisdom. However, political historical revisionism takes on a partisan tone." Historical revisionism (whatever says the home page, which is also POV) is not a legitimate effort. Historical revisionism is a term most famous for the Holocaust denial, which is outlawed in a lot of countries. Even if the distinction between "historical revisionism" and "political historical revisionism" had a sense, well the Holocaust-denial should be condemned in the introduction. Continuing to avoid this is to Wikipedia's shame.

The first section "Politically motivated historical revisionism" is not justified (since historical revisionism, by definition, is always political historical revisionism. If you want to change a generally-admitted view on history, it is always on political grounds.) David Irving enters, of course, in the section of Holocaust denial. The end of this section states:

"Because of the adoption of the term by Holocaust deniers of historical revisionism the term has become stigmatized, and revisionist a suspect description of a historical work dealing with the Nazi period. Holocaust revisionists insist that they are correcting falsehood, and that their publications represent authentic historical research."

This seems to be written by someone who laments the fact that he can not use the world "historical revisionism" without it being associated to the Holocaust-denial. Wikipedia as no reason to lament this, as the prime example of historical revisionism is the Holocaust-denial. It is also possible, as states this entry, to speak of historical revisionism about the Armenian genocide, for example : it is a term linked to the denial of genocides. Moreover, we certainly don't need the Holocaust-revisionist POV here, it is outlawed in the real world and should not be tolerated by Wikipedians. As a matter of fact, vandalism of such a revisionist page would be justified, in my POV (as you see, i prefer, though, to put a comment - let's see if it's useful).

In the "Holocaust revisionism/denial" subsection, it is written: "There is opinion that Zionists have used the Holocaust in an effort to drum up support for their positions, and as cover for questionable activities by the state of Israel. This issue is discussed in the controversial book, The Holocaust Industry." This is "The Holocaust Industry" POV, which is a denial of Holocaust. This entry should not be a forum for such voices. At most, could the "Holocaust industry" be quoted (without needing to develop its racists arguments) as an example of such denial of history and dignity of humanity.

The "African Europeans" subsection is too short to mean anything, except that revisionist love to say others are revisionist (in the same way that racists love arguing that antiracists are in fact racists).

"Jack Chick's Nazi inquisition theory" obscure conspiracy theory should be quoted in conspiracy theory entry, not here, or in the same way as "The Holocaust Industry". However, this brings the issue that some (not all) conspiracy theories are also revisionists...

Finally, revisionism is lying, and an encyclopedia doing an apology of historical revisionism is in trouble... We all know it is difficult agreeing on some truth or NPOV, but that does not mean that all claims, insults and definitions can be tolerated. Words have a meaning, which we are here to discuss, not to ignore. Kaliz 20:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

With regard to "In many European countries, the term "historical revisionism" means the same as "historical deniers". In the United States the term "historical revisionism" has legitimate meaning and is not the same as "historical deniers".", as person holding a history degree from the Unitied States, I disagree. History is what the record states, if new evidence comes to light allowing us to have a deeper understanding of events in some ways, nontheless the nearer in time an observer is to the event in question, the more weight should be given to his observations. Overturning established facts by "historical deniers" is illegitimate, and "historical revisionism" is exactly the same as "historical deniers", in the US and anywhere else. The belief that meta-history ("stories") are illegitimate, or that facts can be pulled out of thin air without concerning ourselves with the context, motivations or backgrounds of the people involved in events denies the essential humanity and meaning of human existance. While meta-histories themselves may also attemt a oversimplifications of complex historical phenomena, it is the meta-history itself that is one of, if not the singme most important component of the history in question, for that meta history is the lens through which the behavior of subsequent events can be analyzed. Atacking the underlying meta-history "the story" of an event without massive proof of a new understanding undermines the very purpose of historical understanding. Such proof is lacking in the japanese involvement in the rape of Nanking incident, the holocaust, and many other similiar events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.208.110.32 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you agree or not is not the point. The point is people, in the real world, use the term with legitimate usage. This is fully citable. We report what people do. Not what we thing people should do. --Stbalbach 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant Link
The first hyperlink supposedly linking to satire of historical revisionism is, while hilarious, not appropriately named. The article linked to is faceituously called "Revisionist History," but it is actually nothing more than funny historical errors from history students' papers. What should we do with this? --BDD 22:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle
As there is currently no section on Douglas Tottle in the article I have moved the discussion from this page talk page to Talk:Douglas Tottle to aid anyone who wishes to turn the article Douglas Tottle from a stub into a full article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln
As most of the people and groups claiming that Lincoln was homosexual or bisexual are gay themselves I don't think the description of Lincoln as a homosexual is designed to discredit Lincoln ; the intention is to elevate the perception of gays in the eyes of the public.


 * I think it's both. First discredit Lincoln and then make him a crusader for homosexual "rights" --Nerd42 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you're missing the point: the people who are making new claims about Lincoln's sexuality don't see it as discrediting him. And I haven't seen anyone try to say that Lincoln was a "crusader" for gay rights (which would be historically absurd), just to use him as an exemplar of a positive role model with an unconventional sexuality.  Of course, it's a matter of historical debate whether he had the sexual leanings that some advocates have recently claimed (I'm not convinced, myself), but I don't think that either discrediting him, or claiming that he was a 19th century Larry Kramer, is the intention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Performing a Merge with historical revisionism; POV-fork
I just checked and realized that its been a year since the Merge was proposed. Since I don't see any strong support in favor of keeping this page, I'm going to do the merge. Actually, I'm going to dump the text into historical revisionism, save it, then open it up again and delete it. There's a lot of great examples of historical revisionism here, and maybe they deserve their own page. But this is not an encyplopedia entry. Lampros 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I am reverting your merge for the following reasons:


 * 1) The merge tag was just put up today.
 * 2) There is opposition to the merge.
 * 3) The discussion of the merge is in the other article.

--Stbalbach 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If the discussion of the merge is in the other article, then the "merge" template should also be in the other article, shouldn't it? :) Kaliz 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh, for some reason I thought the merge tag was old. How can you tell? In any event, I'm still of the opinion that this article doesn't have much content. Lampros 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Wikipedians seem to want to defend another definition of historical revisionism, as if it could be neutral. I don't agree with this POV fork but whatever. Lapaz