Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 7

Historical Revisionism (promotionism)
There's no inclusion of the revisionism that overemphasizes contributions by a particular, entitlement minded demographic to give its members a sense of self-worth and accomplishment.: i.e. 1 martyr > 750,000 casualties

The pastoralists among the ancient Greeks shone a positive light on a fictional, peaceful, bucolic origin. A modern culture promotes and identifies with the marginally significant Maquis and disregards 40,000,000 Vichy collaborators. History advocates Irish ancestors as victims of a famine and disregards their location on an rock surrounded by seas of teaming fish.

Is there room for a promotionism section on revisionism? Sometimes it's what is not said--the adage: evil of which we do not speak--that revises the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.43.73 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unexplianed reversion
Another editor removed the following section without explanation.

This seems to me a perfectly legitimate addition to the page. I have re-added it. If any editor can provide a reason for the deletion, I will happily reverse my postion. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Denialism
In non-historical contexts this kind of practice is called denialism. In several specific historical context, it also is called that (Holocaust denialism). So would Historical denialism be a better title? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No because the common term is historical revisionism. For example the most widely known person in the English speaking world in relation to Holocaust denialism is David Irving. He is far more frequently called a revisionist than a denialist. There are things mentioned in this article, such as distortions of history in the Soviet Union, with do not fit comfortably under denialism. There are also real problems with the use of the word denialism (see Denialism. -- PBS (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe negationism could be preferred? The current title is kind of awkward and throughout the article it uses a term that is often used for legitimate historical scholarship. I'd rather not see the real historical revisionism's good name sullied by this crap. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * negationism is a neologism and as such is not a good name to use for article titles -- I only move it to that dab extension when Historical revisionism (political) proved to be confusing. We have two articles with the name "historical revisionism" which were at first all in one, when the negationism section was moved out it was for clarity, so that the distinction between the two different uses are clearly made. The use of the phrase is akin to "hacker" which means something different to a professional programmer and the general public. I think that the retention of the name with its disambiguation is important because when an article such as this Grauniad article describes Irving as "The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist" people are not confused by only having access to historical revisionism which would give him some form of legitimately. -- PBS (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes it's appropriate to construct an article title. How about something like Distortion of history? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the title the article currently has is better than "Distortion of history" for the reasons I gave in my last answer. Also one could argue that many legitimate views are a distortion (such as the nationalist view on the Battle of Waterloo) and so such a title as "Distortion of history" will not help guide readers to this article when they read the articles in newspapers such as the Grauniad article above and it is likely to cause some editors to be confused as to the scope of this article. -- PBS (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Post by new user
added the following into the article:


 * [This section lacks several close to home cases: USAmerican textbooks' denial of genocide of indigenous American peoples, including stories such as the Squanto, First Thanksgiving legends. Historical illiteracy among US students because of great gaps in what they are taught includes understanding of the peoples and cultures that were present when European contact began, various factors of the Civil War (Andersonville, the enormous death toll), aspects of World War II, such as the refusal to receive Jewish refugees, alternatives to the use of Atom bombs on Japan, and the role of pacifism, labor unions, popular organizing for social reform, and other aspects of the US history that are not well accepted by the more powerful elites in this society.][Case studies might be made from /Lies My Teacher Told Me : Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong/ by James W. Loewen (Sep 3, 1996)] There are certainly other topics to be demonstrated, such as how bowdlerized history has changed over the decades in public schools]

Clearly, this belongs to talk page, rather than to the article, so I reverted it. Does anybody care to comment on this suggestion of article improvement? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Citing David Barton as a academic source on an article about Historical negationism is ironic
Is this a form of sarcasm? David Barton is one of the most well-known psuedo-historians in the United States, who lacks any form of degree in History, consistently rewrites history and misrepresents reality in his effort to promote fundamental evangelical Christianity. I will remove the citation (#26), but this has got to be a bad joke. --Mackinz (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Boldface
Several sections of this article have the topic of the section in boldface. I have sometimes seen that on the English Wikipedia for phrases which redirect to the article or to a certain section (see also Manual of Style/Text formatting. But in this case, the topic of these sections are elaborated in separate articles. For example, under the heading Chinese book burning there is a link to the article Burning of books and burying of scholars but below that the same phrase Burning of books and burying of scholars is in boldface. And in the next section (Nazi book burning), the phrase Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen is in boldface but Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen redirects to the separate article Special Prosecution Book-Poland. I think this extensive use of boldface is confusing, so I propose to change it either to italics or to normal characters. Bever (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole section is redundant, and I deleted them altogether, see my edit summaries and comment on them if disagreed. In any case, if you want to restore them, you must find sources which associate these events with revisionism. Otherwise their inclusion is WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Neologism?
I read the assertion that 'negationism' is a neologism. I think I read the word already before the turn of the century. How old should a word be for not being called a neologism? Bever (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have to request references for assertions. Otherwise it is an idle chat, rather than work on a wikipedia article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Bever which century and in what language? -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of ... - Page xx
 * https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0803220006
 * Alain Finkielkraut - 1998 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
 * Second, Rassinier's negationism emerged only gradually over several years and through the publication of a series of books. In Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (1950), for example, Rassinier admits the existence of the gas chambers but argues they ...


 * The Immanent Utopia: From Marxism on the State to the ... - Page xxxii
 * https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1412837332
 * Preview - ‎More editions
 * They, too, seem to have adopted what Feher refers to as Marxism's "negationism" (Feher 1992), the assumption that one merely needs to oppose capitalism in order to bring on a world which will in every respect be its absolute negation, which ...

1992, 1998 - I'd say neologism, but google books give hundreds of hits already, so I guess it is pretty maintream now. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@user:Staszek Lem With reference to this edit with the editorial comment "Reverted good faith edits by PBS (talk): negationism redirects here; hence must be boldfaced." give me an example of where I have ever made bad faith edit. If you can not show an example of one, then please apologise for being uncivil. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where did I say you made bad faith edit? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See the link you imply that I make bad faith edits. -- PBS (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a standard wikipedia function:
 * [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)]
 * Latest revision as of 10:58, 6 March 2015 (edit) (undo) (thank)
 * PBS (talk | contribs)
 * Don't seek enemies where there none. For starters, read WP:AGF.  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I take back my last remark. You've been on wikipedia since 2004. I am sorry wikipedia made you paranoid. How about taking wikipediholism test and take a break? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do assume good faith it is you who is not doing so. The wording you use is not standard it is an option in Twinkle. If you did not mean what you implied then why not simply write "Reverted edit by PBS (talk):..."? -- PBS (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How "you have good faith" implies "you can have bad faith" is beyond my comprehension. If you insist on this interpretation, file a complaint with twinkle that it promotes accusations in bad faith, not with me. I will continue to use Twinkle because it saves time. When I write "you did in good faith", and if you say "oh, you are accusing me that sometimes I act in bad faith", then IMO it is paranoia or looking for a cock fight. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It implies that I also make bad faith edits otherwise why single out an edit as a good faith edit when you can simply write "edit"? I have raised the issue see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 35, but the Twinkle default edit comment can be altered and you are responsible for your own edit commentary. As I said before: give me an example of where I have ever made bad faith edit. If you can not show an example of one, then please apologise for being uncivil. -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before: How "you have good faith" implies "you can have bad faith" is beyond my comprehension. Anyway, English is not my first language, therefore I requested third opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * More than one person has commented in this section so a WP:3O is inappropriate. I never suggested that no comment be added:
 * "Reverted edit by AEDITOR (talk):..."
 * is a neutral statement
 * "Reverted good faith edits by AEDITOR (talk):..."
 * is not. See my opening comment in this archive
 * BTW I notice that rather than apologise Staszek Lem calls in a third party, if no offence was meant then why not apologise? -- PBS (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I explained why I called 3rd party: unlike you, I decided to double-check my judgement. Did you happen to notice that third party politely says that not only "no offense is meant", but there is no offense? Several people, including the archive page you wikilinked, told you that you are wrong. I am extremely reluctant to report your harassment at AN/I, but if you don't back off, I will ask to evaluate your behavior, unbecoming of an admin. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw this on 3O, and even though it was taken I peeked.
 * This is bizarre! I have seen that edit summary countless times, and it is glaringly obvious what its purpose is. I have never seen anybody interpret "this was a good faith edit" as "this user has previously edited in bad faith". But what is truly bizarre is that the person who used this polite edit summary is expected to apologise because the other person took it the wrong way! It's you, PBS, who needs to apologise. Your behavior is outrageous. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because a word appears in a few books does not mean it is not a neologism (a raw Google book search returns about 400 results which is not a lot). The word "negationism" does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and Wikiepdia should no be propagating its usage as if it is a dictionary word. As it happens it was I who introduced the word to its prominence in this article as a dab extension with a move back in 2006. I did this because the previous dab extension which was "(political)" caused a misunderstanding over what this article was about among some editors. If one looks through the books returned by the Google book search one will see that while some use it from its modern French meaning, there is another meaning in English linked to the dictionary word "negation" "An act of denial; a negative statement, doctrine, etc.; a refusal or contradiction; a denial of something." and in this broader meaning it is used to mean the "denial of something" but that something can be anything in particular religious doctrines, so to try to removed noise from the books on religious discussion re-running the search but only from 1950 which is about the earliest date that the term could have been used in its modern French meanings, the number of books falls to about 30 the first returned in this search of more modern books is In this book on page one the author (Elst) assumes the his audience will not know the word so he defines it before he starts to use it:
 * Negationism in India: concealing the record of Islam (1992)
 * Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not the reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941-45, also known as the Holocaust (Greek: fire- sacrifice) or the Shoah (Hebrew: catastophe). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted. The negationists themselves prefer to call themselves revisionists, because they think that there is nothing to deny or "negate", and that the "known facts" of history are a fabrication which will be exposed when history is "revised".

However his need to do define it shows that the word was not in common usage with his meaning when he defined it (or there would be no need to have such an elaborate definition). Although most of the 30 books returned in the search of books after 1950 are using it either to mean specifically denying the Holocaust or broadening it out as Elst does in his book, some of the books are using the more traditional broader meaning linked to the dictionary meaning of "negation": I think I have shown that the word is still a neologism (a Google books search of 40 books since 1950) with more than one meaning returned is not common usage (in comparison a search on "Holocaust" returned 1,000 books for a similar search). So until the OED includes "Negationism", Wikiepedia should not imply that the word "Negationism" and this specific meaning for the word is anything but a neologism. -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Representing Reason: Feminist Theory and Formal Logic (2002) "Negationism sees the treatment of women as a negative category as the problem indicated by the concept of the wodman as the Other."
 * Revisiting the Frankfurt School: Essays on Culture, Media and Theory (2012) "Negationism is this respect stands in opposition to affirmative culture; the point is to realize it."
 * I basically agree with your argument. However wikipedia's arcane rules do not allow us to directly say it is a neologism. At best we can say "some authors<> refer to this as "negationism". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not need to say anything of the sort, the only change that need to be made is the one I made here, or we can put back the old wording "is also sometimes (but not commonly) called" and unbold the word as per WP:NOTNEO, Or if you do not want that wording either then earlier still : "Historical revisionism" (also but less often in English "negationism"). -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The NOTNEO guideline does not speak about highlighting. On the other hand, the redirect usage guideline does. I am restoring your phrasing "sometimes", but IMO the boldface must stay. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the guideline that you are using to justify keeping it in bold? -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that you do not read between the lines in WP:NOTNEO and state "NOTNEO guideline does not speak about highlighting" as its intent is clear and as policies and guidelines are not legal documents their intent must be considered. However there is a solution to this problem. MOS:BOLDTITLE states "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold:" we have agreed that negationism is a neologism as as such it is not a "significant alternative title". -- PBS (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename?
BTW, WP:NOTNEO says.
 * In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

IMO opinion the term "negationism" unnecessarily narrows the scope of the current article, and therefore its usage in article title is misleading. Therefore I would support a reasonable suggection about article renaming, per WP:NOTNEO. I would consider the phrase already used in the lede Illegitimate historical revisionism. IMO it clearly draws the distinction and would simplify the lede. I am not filing a WP:MOVE request, because I'd like to have a reasonable consensus about new name first. (I see in talk archives at least 4 page move discussionss). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How does it narrow the scope as it is only a dab extension. What do you think would be included with your suggested name change that is not currently included/is currently excluded?
 * I would oppose that title. I would consider a move to historical revisionism (illegitimate), but that would need further discussion. -- PBS (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest to modify the title to Negazionism, because that's what it is. Be clear and don't play around terms, please. Carlotm (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Communists and Confederates
I do not think that this sentence should remain in the article:

Whether or not Christopher Hill was incorrect to interpret the English Civil War through the lens of communism he was not revisionist. There is a big difference between an objective historian and a negationist. One can be an objective historian and draw different conclusions from the same historical facts.

Likewise the section on the Confederacy is flawed for the same reason. It is beyond dispute that the confederate states went to war over state rights and that the Union states fought over that issue. What confederate sympathising historians do is play up the state rights while glossing over this issue that the right they wanted to uphold was slavery. Similarly Union historians tend to over emphasise the liberation of the slaves and underplay the issue of state rights. This does not mean that most historians on both sides are not objective historians.

This is not uncommon in historical narrative. For example at the moment the British media is full of the 100 anniversary of the Great War, "the war to end wars", "the war to protect democracy", etc. But the motives in 1914 was not for any of those motives (they came later). For the British it was to protect Belgium's neutrality the breach of which by the Germans was seen as threatening Britain's vital national interests (to do with the balance of power in Europe and German navel and imperial ambitions). But the simple narrative history (for those who did not specialise in it post 16 years old), is what the BBC and other popular media have tended to broadcast this week, and that involves the ideas that the Great War was about ending war not Great Power politics. But that does not make the BBC a negationist organisation!

Unlike a Wikiepdia article, historians are paid to write a narrative and analyse events. If they wrote articles in the style of Wikipedia featured articles and only summed up others ideas, their tenure would be in jeopardy for not doing original research and drawing conclusions from that research. The process usually takes time. For example the first job is to catalogue the archives (and that can take a generation), the second job is to sift the primary sources previously archived, and come up with a history or narrative of those sources. New primary sources may lead to new narratives, but often the most recent narratives reflect history through the current academic Zeitgeist.

Here is a simple example of how interpretation of facts can vary without negationism being involved.During the 1980s most armies in the world consisted of conscripts, but the United States and British Commonwealth countries relied on volunteers. That is a fact. But an historian can conclude that this shows how peace loving the English speaking societies are that their governments do not force young men into the armed forces, or an historian can conclude that this shows how warlike English societies are that the government so many volunteers that they do not need conscription.

So any way I think that the first sentence should be modified by taking out the word "communist" because historians like Christopher Hill are not negationists his seminal works in the 1940s reflected the zeitgeist of his profession and the socialist view of his generation.

I think that the section on the Confederacy should be removed, because it reflects a form of nationalism (ie was it "war between the states" or a "civil war") rather than negationism. It is like saying that Americans using the term "American Revolutionary War" for the "American War of Independence" are negationist because the rebels were fighting for independence and the type of government they wanted after independence was inconsequential to the war. This is clearly a silly argument, because both view can be extracted from the primary sources and neither view is negationist as described by the use of the "Techniques" section of this article. -- PBS (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the fate this phrase right now: it is "not even wrong" without context, the context may be exists in the references, but, as I've just checked, absent from our wikipedia article. Therefore while your argument is basically correct, it is irrelevant to the phrase in question.
 * If I understand you correctly, one has to clearly distinguish between facts and opinions and interpretations. Negationism is denial of facts and events. Denial of opinions and interpretations, no matter how mainstream they are, is not negationism. Although aggressive polemists may put this sticker onto the latter one as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote a long reply involving examples from the English Civil War and the Battle of Waterloo, but it was getting too long. So the short answer is yes, unless they are using the big lie technique. Also one has to balance accusations of nagationism because they are prescriptive and polemic. At its best a nagationist is shown up to be a negationst by exposing their methods. It was not Deborah Lipstadt's accusation that destroyed David Irving reputation, it was the detailed evidence given in open court that did that. To quote from objective historian "It was Irving's failure as an 'objective historian' not his right wing views that caused him to lose his libel case, as a 'conscientious historian' would not have 'deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence' to support his political views". -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "...Whether or not Christopher Hill was incorrect to interpret the English Civil War through the lens of communism he was not revisionist. There is a big difference between an objective historian and a negationist. One can be an objective historian and draw different conclusions from the same historical facts..." -- Communism (properly: Marxism-Leninism) is categorically subjective, not objective. All "communist historians" are revisionist-negationists to some (usually large) extent, because concepts such as "telling the truth" are not the party agenda.
 * "...It is beyond dispute that the confederate states went to war over state rights and that the Union states fought over that issue...." -- This is incorrect with almost every word. 100% of the "original seven" Confederate state's articles of secession reference maintenance of slavery as an animating factor; none of them reference "states rights". The Union did not the start the war; South Carolina started it by shelling Fort Sumter two months after the Confederacy has already formed (by February of 1861). (Note that Lincoln had forsworn invasion of the south during his inaugural address, and this his southern-sympathizing predecessor had widely dispersed US armies to forts west of the Mississippi and along the Canadian border.) Despite having already won his new country over the winter of '60/61, Jefferson Davis set upon provocative measures, such as a call for a 100,000 man army (which would have dwarfed the existent US army). Even after the shelling of Sumter, reconciliation might have been possible if Davis had admonished South Carolina and initiated a diplomatic overture; instead he eagerly jumped into war, bellicose and confident that a South steeped in martial tradition and speckled with military academies would easily defeat a weak North. (He forgot about his Achilles Heels: economic dependance upon cotton exports and lack of a Navy, both of which led to the North immediately blockading its ports early in the war.)--Froglich (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Older examples?
All of the examples are post 1900. What about Imperial China? The Chinese were infamous for rewriting history to make previous dynasties seem evil/gluttonous/corrupt/etc since the Zhou Dynasty. I know this can also be found in other East Asian monarchial countries. There should be a section on this, and other older examples of negative historical revisionism.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 10:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have addressed this by restoring some deleted material referencing, among other things, the Burning of books and burying of scholars during the Qin dynasty. (Obviously there are far more examples than this, and the section could be enlarged considerably.)--Froglich (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Chinese revisionism
I wish to extend the opportunity for User:Staszek Lem to explain his recent edits (which I have reverted for the reasons provided in commentary).--Froglich (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary says "revisionism is mentioned in the second one.". The second paragraph says: . He [Mao] insisted that these "revisionists" be removed through violent class struggle. This has nothing to do with the article subject, which is Historical revisionism (negationism) . Therefore I deleted the section. The word "revisionism" has numerous meanings. Wikipedia articles carefully avoid mixing them.


 * By the way, your fist edit summary says "Mao's revisionist ambitions are prominently mentioned in the second lead paragraph of the Cultural Revolution". NOthing there says about "Mao's revisionist ambitions". Therefore I seriously doubt that you understand what you are reading and writing.


 * Also, you addition is without references. This is against wikipedia policies. In article talk pages the correctness of information is verified by checking references in reliable sources. You provided none. Therefore there is no basis for resolving our disagreement. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The requirement for citation (not that any editor has added a citation-needed tag anyway) is overridden by the main article links (which direct the reader to the other article). (And please properly indent responses.)


 * "He [Mao] insisted that these "revisionists" be removed through violent class struggle. This has nothing to do with the article subject, which is Historical revisionism (negationism) ." -- Be that as it may, it is plainly evident elsewhere (including abundantly in this very article) that communist dictatorships all rewrite history to their satisfaction (and Mao, claiming to be "purer" than most, certainly intended to "clean up" history more than the rest, and his legacy of historical fact massaging by government edict is evident in the present day in China.


 * In summation, the section belongs in the article, and I will restore it after the danger of 3RR has passed provided you do not do so yourself.
 * We can work together on the wording of particular paragraphs if the actual bone-of-contention on your part is lack of explanation of revision-negationism.--Froglich (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your answer didn't address my major concerns. Therefore I don't want to waste my time on fruitless arguments. Please provide references which say that Mao was involved in historical revisionism, according to wikipedia policies. Period. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh for God's sake, you mean you can't immediately go to Google, type in "china historical revisionism" and have the first search-return direct you to a reliable source, one of many on the first page of returns.
 * -- But rather than do that (and then improve the article), or add a citation-needed tag, your first recourse was to section-blank, then edit-war over it, then go "all in" rationalizing a fantasy in which such references are so unlikely to be found that immediate wholesale blanking is the best recourse. This is absurd.--Froglich (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the article you've found supports  your claim that "Mao's revisionist ambitions are prominently mentioned in the second lead paragraph of..." Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the page for three days to allow you both to sort this out without any further edit warring before you do so. If you reach a mutually agreed compromise before the three days are up, then leave a message on my talk page and ANI and an administrator will reverse my protection. Before you write anything else here Froglich, please read the policy section to which WP:PROVEIT links. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * RS-backed proof can be found in a matter of seconds. If we could manage to keep the section in existence, I'd improve it. You've currently locked the article down on the poor version which rewards a section-blanker, which means that nothing can be done until you've unlocked it. And, since you've given him everything he wanted while painting me as the bad guy, he has no reason to agree to any "compromise" in the interim.--Froglich (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See The Wrong Version
 * WP:BURDEN is clear: the editor restoring text that has been challenged needs to inline ciations to reliable source when restoring the text (not afterwards).
 * I have copied the disputed text into you sandbox, and left a message about it on your talk page. As such you can add the footnotes (which must be citations to reliable sources) to the text there before you copy it back here. This is not a mandate to reinsert the text with any old sources, you need to make sure that they are reliable and cover the text they are intended to support. You will find more details about this in the WP:BURDEN section along with links to guidelines which explains these concepts in more detail.
 * -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Froglich, before you get yourself into even more trouble, I would strongly advise you to read carefully another policy: WP:NPA. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Confederate revisionism

 * See previous 

If the section on Confederate revisionism is going to be a simplistic polemic in support of the prevailing national patriotic mythology, it is best deleted. I did so. If someone wants to put it back, for God's sake, do a better job. No unbiased historian can examine the subject of the causes of the War of the Rebellion seriously without noticing that there are 2 bodies of evidence that superficially seem to point in opposite directions. Too many Southern sympathizers ignore the text of the secession resolution of South Carolina, and at least one other state, but the most egregious ignoring of evidence is done by the Lincoln idolaters and my-country-right-or-wrong types. You can't legitimately just ignore the views of notable contemporaries like William Lloyd Garrison or Lord Acton, just because you don't like them, dismiss the importance of the tariff because you don't understand economics, dismiss the importance of federalism vs. nationalism because you don't have a clue about U.S. constitutional history, or pretend scholars like Hummel, Adams, & diLorenzo are fruitcakes because you hate the idea that the subject is complex enough that you might actually have to study it to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC) :
 * I've read all of Lincoln's letters and writings, and some of the better biographies about Lincoln. You want this all to be about writers like diLorenzo, a selective contrarian who tried to tell some shocking truths about Lincoln that exaggerate some issues and remove the context around them. Secessionists made it very explicitly clear in their declaration of reasons for secession, Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone speech and many, many other documents that slavery related complaints were their motive for secession. The best civil war historians go by the historical record, which is clear.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The section does need to be expanded to cover negationists such as DiLorenzo. Not as reliable sources, which they certainly are not, but as examples of that negationism. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be fine.71.252.145.82 (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with 24.96.210.230. The section "Confederate revisionism" should be deleted. The very first sentence starts off with a supposition not that facts are denied but that one interpretation is incorrect: "Confederate revisionists, or 'Civil War revisionists', and Neo-Confederates argue that the Confederate States of America was the defender, rather than the instigator, of the American Civil War, and that the Confederacy's motivation was the maintenance of states rights and limited government rather than the preservation and expansion of slavery". This is not a new view (so it is not a revisionist view) and it is just a legitimate as to argue that the war was fought over slavery. The truth is that it was a balance between state rights, and the unfortunate instance by some states that they had the "right" to continue allow slavery. Whether an historian wishes to emphasise one or the other views is not revisionism, and this first sentence is presenting one POV. By labelling those that hold this view "revisionists" implies that it is a new view over an established orthodoxy, it is not. For example if theses people are "Confederate revisionists" then who were the proceeding  "Confederate historians" with whom they disagree? -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a new view (it dates back to some post-war flip flopping by Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens) but it is a reversal, or revisionism, nonetheless.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no equivalency of states rights and slavery as a cause of the civil war. Secessionists did not go to war for states rights, the war was initiated to preserve and extend slavery, as avowed by the principle actors at the time to themselves and to the world. To achieve independence of a perpetual slave-holding republic, the Confederacy centralized economically under government control far more than had been the practice in the antebellum United States -- see Emory M. Thomas, "The Confederate Nation: 1861-1865". Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens objected to the loss of states rights under Jefferson Davis and was self-exiled to Georgia for the duration. Jefferson Davis subsequently adopted Stephens ideology to hold out an alternative rationale for the horrific bloodshed. It had turned out one Southerner could not whip 100 cowardly Yankees with one arm tied behind his back; a miscalculation on the part of the Fire-eaters, the promises of no war at secession for perpetual slavery were empty and so the revisionism followed the unhappy result. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The English Civil War is interesting in this respect as there has never been agreement on what were the causes for it. Unlike the American Civil War it was not a war between regions (in many ways "War Between the States" is a much more accurate description of that war than truly civil war which is what occurred in England in the 1640s.


 * Those who hold different view on the causes for the English Civil War are not considered negationists, although some are considered revisionists (as those historians of a reinterpretation in the 1970s and 80s are know) see "English Civil War § Historiography and explanations". The Marxists historians of the 1940s may have been wrong in their interpretation of the causes of the civil war but that did not make them negationists. One can hold unusual views on the interpretation of history, but one can still be an objective historian even when people disagree with the interpretation one places on the behaviour of actors and the causes for the events. What evidence is there that this difference in motive for the interpretation of historical facts in the American Civil War that is different from those of the English Civil War, or those of the various national myths built up around the Battle of Waterloo? The reason why we have two articles historical revisionism and negationism is because not all historical revisionism is negationism.


 * TheVirginiaHistorian: You say "Secessionists did not go to war for states rights" but "the war was initiated to preserve and extend slavery" surly the right to own slaves was they thought was an internal matter for states to decide themselves (ie an internal state's issue which had not been surrendered to the Federal institutions when the colonies/states delegated some powers under the federal constitution)? If the North had been fighting for just the abolition of slavery, then they would have abolished it in the North and let the South go its own way. The North did not do that because secession was a major part of the Jus ad bellum, as it was the aftermath: people were not banned from public office for having held slaves but for having supported secession (Section 3 of Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). This change is reflected in the change of common usage from  "United States are ..." to the "United States is ..." and so AFAICT much of it depends on interpretation rather than negationism as to why the American Civil War was fought. What is the evidence is there in reliable sources that "revisionist historians" are not objective historians?


 * During the debate on whether or not Britain ought to join the Euro, it was presented in the tabloid press as a simple issue of nationalism, keep the pound Up Yours Delors etc. However there was a much deeper debate going on in financial circles, which and been around since the 1980s in both Britain and Germany. Given the age profile of Europeans it was a question if pensions should rise in line with inflation or with wages. In Britain Thatcher broke the link between the state pension and wages in the 1980s because it was thought that the pension bill if index to wages would become unsustainable. British financial circles argued that as many European countries such as Italy had not made that change, if Britain was to join the Euro, British tax payers would in the future be financing unsupportable social pensions in countries like Italy while its own pensioners lived in relative penury. This was a major reason why, leaving aside popular nationalism of the Sun newspaper, that Britain did not join the Euro. The same discussions were also held in Germany, but there the political commitment to an ever closer union overrode the economic concerns. Historians can choose which they think is the more influential reasons why Germany was committed to the Euro and Britain was not, and that is the beauty of history, professional historians can usual look at the same facts and draw radically different conclusions while still being objective historians. When Britain votes on whether to stay in the EU or to leave it, after the fact historians will have a plethora of threads to choose from as to why the British voted as they did, but thanks to Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon a state's withdrawal from the European Union is not a legal issue. Too bad the US constitution does not have an exit clause for member states, perhaps the American Civil War would have been averted if it had. -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys, you are forgetting about the simple test whether a theory is negationism: the issue of contention must be a fact, not an opinion, however commonly accepted opinion may be. Negationism denies solidly established facts by using questionable methods. Once you think of it, the issue becomes clear: the answers to the question "why" in politics are 97% opinions and in 99% cases multiple valid ones. Therefore the issues of "negationism" is moot here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the requirement that "the issue of contention must be a fact" is a part of this article's lede. In the body of the article in the "Techniques" section it talks of "exploiting opinions by taking them out of their historical context."  However distorting facts is also very much a part of neo-confederate history -- check out DiLorenzo or Adams and the "liberties" they take in explaining how tariffs only effected southern consumers.


 * Neo-confederates also make free use of the technique referenced in the first sentence from Evans in the "Techniques" section which states, "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly." The out of context use of quotations is particularly egregious when the neo-confederates pick apart secession documents (i.e. Texas seceded because the Federal government didn't protect them from Indian attacks), when they argue that Lincoln really didn't have anything against slavery, or when they explain why period documents prove that 150,000 blacks voluntarily served as CSA combat soldiers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * re "neo-confederates" All is good and well, however the proper place to write about this is to update the article Neo-Confederate with criticsm which specifically accuses them of negationism, with solid references and all. After you've done that and it sticks, then you may add a summary section here, according to Summary style. The main subject of this page is a generic concept of negationism. Specific cases of negationism must be covered in specific articles, where experts in specific areas may discuss the issue. For example, I doubt the experts in Confederacy frequent this page, so whatever you write here is doomed to be biased simply because of not enough eyes. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "I don't see the requirement" - this means that the article sucks. Free criticism of any opinions (barring hate speech) is a cornerstone of research (and of the Free World). Cherry-picking of quotations in any discourse is not patented by negationists; it may be part of propaganda, sloppy research, POV pushing, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. again re:"I don't see the requirement" - well, I looked now and I do see it. Right in the first sentence: "illegitimate distortion of the historical record". A record is a fact. Recorded opinion is a fact. (o1): "Lincoln said that slavery is bad" is a recorded opinion. (o2): "Lincoln said that slavery may be bad" is a distortion of the record. (o3): "War stared because Lincoln said slavery is bad" is an opinion. (o4) "War stared because the North needed more cheap hands at their factories" is another opinion. 'o4' is not distortion of 'o3'. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated in the article introduction, "Historical revisionism (negationism)" is to relate to “the illegitimate distortion of the historical record”. It includes denial of historical crimes, called “negationism”. The Lost Cause anachronistic historiography reinterprets national treason resulting in the loss of over 600,000 lives in combat deaths alone.


 * It cloaks the rejection of democratic constitutional governance in armed rebellion as a mere philosophical disagreement which might be applied to any of several contemporary turf wars between national and local forces, most often related to applying the Bill of Rights to protect the liberties of individual citizens in states from the injustices of abusive local majorities. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "It cloaks the rejection of democratic constitutional governance in armed rebellion as a mere philosophical disagreement" do you mean like the "American War of Independence"? "national treason" but isn't it the point at issue? IE whether before the Civil War, the United states was no more than a transnational organisation in which sovereignty lay in the member states (much as is the case with the European Union). If so it was not "national treason" to secede (any more than it would be for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom or the Untied Kingdom to leave the European Union) As I said above the change from the "United states are" to the "United States is". Besides wasn't the United States set up as a act of treason in the first place ("If this be treason make the most of it" -- Patrick Henry)? The Earl of Manchester said during the English Civil War "If we beat the king 99 times he is king still, and so will his posterity be after him; but if the king beat us once, we shall be all hanged, and our posterity be made slaves", but the commonwealth-men won the war so they were not traitors it was Charles Stuart, that man of blood who was found to be guilty of treason and executed. TheVirginiaHistorian your arguments are political ones, and are those of the victor in the American Civil War/War between the States, it does not mean that those who disagree with your analysis are negationists. To show that you need to find arguments presented by disinterested academic parties, who have concluded that some of the named parties to the argument are negationists (and remember that if the person is living BLP applies). See for example how entries on living people are handled in the section "Notable genocide denials by individuals and non government organisations" in the article genocide denial. Do you have any sources avaible to provide the information to allow construction such an entry? -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the United States was a “transnational organization” during the Articles of Confederation. It’s perpetual union was made more perfect by a Constitution where the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, laws enacted by Congress, and treaties. Conflating the US under the Articles versus the US under the Constitution is a standard Lost Cause canard of negationism.

No, the War of American Independence was to secure the Rights of Englishmen guaranteed in the ancient Stuart charters and the self-evident natural rights of man in self government only after a twenty-year chain of abuses justified independence. Treason is making war on the United States. Jefferson Davis and his confederates suffered nothing at the hands of the US government at the time of the secessionist movement to justify armed rebellion against a legitimate government. Lincoln was certified constitutionally elected in December 1860, before the newly elected Republican pluralities were seated in Congress.

No, there is no legitimate comparison to the American Revolution, no harm was done the southern states or their citizens by the US government continuously for twenty years prior the Civil War under slaveholding presidents and slaveholding justices, and the pro-slave Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. To pretend otherwise is negationism, “the illegitimate distortion of the historical record”. One northern sectional vote refusing to accept the domestic terrorism of Bleeding Kansas and its LeCompton Constitution for a slaveholding Kansas does not qualify as a long chain of abuses stretching twenty years all with the same object of slave emancipation, or high tariffs, or whatever else that may be unrelated to the personal liberty of free citizens living in free community, the rationale for the American Revolution.

The Civil War was instigated by those who rejected democratic republican government by the US for fear that slavery might not be perpetual in the US as it disappeared throughout the civilized western world in the mid 19th century. However misled the people enlisted in rebellion were by the secessionist leadership, the armed rebellion is unjustifiable by the legitimate historical record. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with the arguments presented in Texas v. White but MRDA "Well, they would say that wouldn't they?". The decision was not decided in a court room it was decided on the battle field. I am not sure if you really believe the POV you are espousing is the truth or if you realise that it is only one interpretation. For example there are two legal arguments that are presented for legal basis or lack of it for the treason trial of Charles I. One is presented by
 * The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG The trial of King Charles I – defining moment for our constitutional liberties, to the Anglo-Australasian Lawyers' association, on 22 January 1999.
 * The other by
 * Geoffrey Robertson (2005). The Tyrannicide Brief: The Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold. Chatto & Windus. pp. 16–17. ISBN 0-7011-7602-4.
 * Neither man is a negationist, they are both respected Australian barristers, but they have radically different views on the legality of the trial, indeed both men know each other and Robertson was spurred on to write his book in response to Kirby's lecture. Like all good barristers they are experts of presenting a coherent and clear argument to support different interpretations of the same facts in court. The point is that to date you have espoused a point of view, but you have not presented any papers from reliable academic sources that argue that there is any nagationism involved in the different interpretations of state rights etc, or is it that you do you think that the minority views expressed in Texas v. White are nagationist views if so you have failed to understand the difference between legitimate and illegitimate revisionism. I think a good place to start is for you to present articles that state that the people you think of a negationists are not objective historians. -- PBS (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is an objective fact that secessionists made war on the United States, mere adventurers assembling as the Aaron Burr conspirators did is not treasonous. The state of South Carolina ceded land to the United States which then built Fort Sumter, South Carolina could not nullify the contract without the permission of the US. For Charles I, you conflate the sovereignty of a legislature (Parliament) with sovereignty of the people; the US Constitution does not permit bills of attainder. The Constitutional procedure to express the will of the people is 2/3 of the people in the House, 2/3 of the states in the Senate, and 3/4 of the people in the states; the proposed amendment to allow secession failed to get the required support in Congress. In any case, Articles Congress dissolved itself to begin the Constitutional government of eleven states, the Constitutional Congress did not dissolve itself to permit the Confederacy -- as a matter of fact.


 * You have not presented articles that say Texas v. White is either minority or negationist, the argument hinging on songwriter Mandy Rice-Davis authority notwithstanding. Perhaps a look at William C. Davis, “The Cause Lost: Myths and realities of the Confederacy” might be a start to a clearer understanding of United States history. Negationism can include not only denial of the Constitutional differences from the Articles, but also minimization of the 600,000 lives lost in a bankrupt effort by secessionists to preserve slavery into the twentieth century, and justification for unnecessarily drafting thousands to their deaths under the pretense of defending their homeland from modern constitutional government which might abolish slavery one day. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "you conflate the sovereignty of a legislature (Parliament) with sovereignty of the people" no I do not. As it happens today is a notable day in the reign of the Queen, she as now been on the throne longer than any other British or English monarch. The sovereignty in the British constitution is more complicated than simple "sovereignty of the people" (sovereignty was something that involves the political compromise that came out of the Civil War, the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution). The best explanation written on this subject is probably Walter Bagehot's.


 * You have misunderstood what I wrote (my fault) when I write "or is it that you do you think that the minority views expressed in Texas v. White are negationist" (my new emphasis) I mean by "minority view expressed in" those described in the section Texas v. White § Dissenting opinion. So I do not need to present an article that says " Texas v. White is either minority or negationist". BTW Mandy Rice-Davis was not a song writer (see the Profumo affair) and her courtroom repost has entered the British political lexicon for the obvious reason that it perfectly express cynicism about any self serving statement by a anyone in a position of power eg "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
 * I have not read the book you have mentioned but there are some wikiquotes by William C. Davis one of which is "One man's truth, however, can be another's myth, and only through dispassionate and disinterested dissection of such stories can we tell the difference. The Confederate experience is dotted with episodes that are not particularly admirable". Where does he go further and make statements like those that Deborah Lipstadt made of Irving and others who deny the Holocaust? If he has not done that, then do you know of any sources that do? The point is there is a difference between discovering the truth through "dispassionate and disinterested dissection" which may involve legitimate historical revisionism and someone who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence" which is a summary of the motives and behaviour found in illegitimate historical revisionism. You need to provide evidence in reliable sources of the latter if this section is to remain here with the appropriate focus on such revelations. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * William C. Davis does not deny the Holocaust nor does he deny the secessionists in the American Civil War committed treason to slaughter hundreds of thousands for the perpetuation of slavery into the twentieth century. They failed as Gary W. Gallagher notes in The myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War history p. 1. “The architects of the Lost Cause…sought to justify their own actions and … find something positive in all-encompassing failure.” p.1.


 * It seems as though you wish to limit the use of the term negationism to mean something other than the definition used in this article, "This article deals solely with the latter, [the illegitimate distortion of history], which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism.” Barton, Brown, Swint, Simpson and Blight are cited in the passage as it now reads in the article to condemn the Lost Cause historiography and its modern applications as illegitimate distortion of history.


 * Now it happens that as a way to ease the reconciliation of the nation following the American Civil War, an amnesty was granted all those who took up arms against the US Government, and that too is a part of United States history. Do you wish to only remember the amnesty and refuse to acknowledge the conflict and its purpose? But that would be illegitimate distortion of the historical record, would it not? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This one seems to have petered out rather than come to any thing.  Mostly I'm thinking -- this just doesn't seem to fit as a 'negatism' denying of factual events, there is not denial that slavery existed or that a war happened.  It should at least state something evidence of it more specific and significant than soapboxing over a vague period about 100 years ago a writing contest by the Daughters of Confederacy supposedly happened.  Yeesh...  But since folks seem to really really want it, I suggest Just follow the cites - cite out what is being done where, and if that turns out to be trivial then it's trivial.     Markbassett (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Image Edit War
Could people who add or remove the image, please, provide reasons in the edits. The only edit with any real argument was mine (in my perhaps not sufficiently humble opinion). Second best was User:Staszek_Lem, who did not state what he did not understand in my edit summary, but at least proposed to discuss on the talk page. I do not care much either way, but changes without constructive edit summaries annoy me. --Mlewan (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, my edit summary says it clearly: "The painting is *not* illustrating negationism. If I am mistaken, please explain in talk page". Per wikipedia rules, it is your burden to provide the proof that your edits are appropriate. YOu wrote :Image is relevant, illustrating both the concept as such" Pleas prove how it illustrates the concept of negationism. The painting title says exactly opposite: "Truth and Wisdom assist History in writing" Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Intro
I restored the intro section, from before the IP's edits, with some changes. The old version gave a clear explanation that the term "revisionism" has two meanings.

In addition I removed the poorly referenced statement: " English term negationism derives from the French phrase Le négationnisme" - may be it is so, but the source cited does not support this. The source is a review of the book The Future of a Negation: Reflections on the Question of Genocide and it says that the word "negation" is the translation of french "negationisme", which refers to holocaust denial. I.e., it does not speak about the origin of the term "negationism" Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your failure to answer the objections stated both in article talk page and your user talk page is inadmissible in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * Please, no personal attacks. I think an apology to the IP is warranted. Mlewan (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be specific in your accusations. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)