![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
"They do this by downplaying its scale and whitewashing other Nazi war crimes while emphasizing the suffering of the Axis populations at the hands of the Allies and stating or implying that the Allies committed war crimes as well."
The sentence in bold should probably be rewrote, it seems to imply that Axis populations did not suffer during WWII, or that the Allies never committed questionable acts during WWII. I don't think that emphasizing the suffering of Axis civilians during, say, the bombing of Dresda or Hiroshima, qualifies as "negationism". I do believe in the Holocaust but I believe that bombing Hiroshima was a war crime, too... that makes me a "negationist"? -- Lupo1982 ( talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Some parts of the entire article text tend to mix revisionist claims on facts with moral assessments, in particular Holocaust denial with the assessment of Allied war crimes, or whether they may be compared to the Holocaust. However, the term of historical revisionism should be limited to claims on facts, not end up in a moral dispute. I deleted a part of the "Denial" section, which went beyond defining Historical revisionism, but headed towards equating the denunciation of Allied war crimes with Holocaust denial, albeit the first is a subjective assessment and not a claim on facts.
Also an object of reworking should be the part of the paragraph "Holocaust denial" where Holocaust deniers are related to the formerly large group of expelled Germans (Heimatvertriebene), with one claim already marked as "Citation needed" (that they blame Jews for the suffering of the expelled). The text is lacking clues where and how Holocaust deniers successfully searched for support among expelled Germans (more than among other social groups of post-war Germany), and even if there had been such support, it would contribute little to an article about Historical revisionism in general (but blow it up unnecessarily). If such a connection existed, it should be in the specific article about Holocaust denial. BBirke ( talk) 17:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is still a great difference between denying the Holocaust as a FACT and controversial OPINIONS about moral implications. To accept the Holocaust not "only" as a genocide crime, but as an unique, exceptional atrocity over all other mass murders and genocides, on the other hand all Allied atrocities as justified or at least condonable, is an OPINION (and in the latter part, a morally highly questionable one). Holocaust denial is simply wrong, no matter what moral implications one might draw from that. Rejecting the previously mentioned opinion in it's extreme form, is a legitimate, different opinion far from Holocaust denial, justification or even preparing similar crimes in the future.
There may be wrong and exaggerated numbers on casualites in Dresden. So, it's likely far closer to the proposed minimum of 25000 instead of an exaggerated 250000. Does this change the fact that especially the British air force commonly performed air raids targeted against civilians, even before WW2 in British colonial territories, and that Dresden was only the most infamous out of hundreds of such air raids?
Maybe the problem is that the Wikipedia article about historical revisionism is split into two, one rather serious about scientific revisionism, and the other (negationism) about "revisionism" on politically hot topics (genocides, esp. Holocaust), which are often subject to social and political dogmatism. Controversy is hindered by the risk of getting shunned, attacked or even become subject to criminal punishment (multiple countries penalize claims that their gouvernments have committed crimes, Holocaust denial in Germany being an exception). Recognizing Holocaust denial as a forgery and junk science should not mean that one also has to accept Allied war crimes in WW2 as justified or condonable. Text parts which equate a moral comparison of Allied war crimes and Holocaust, with Holocaust denial are plainly misleading and defamatory, even if these comparisons do frequently occur together with Holocaust denial or with intention to downplay it. BBirke ( talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How is denial of Serbian war crimes unacceptable, when denial of Muslim and Croat war crimes in the war is acceptable? This article is one-sided on the whole Yugoslavia thing, and negates to mention that all sides involved committed war crimes in that conflict. They do not deny that the camps exist, because they do, but HOW THEY were used. This is not denial of Serbian war crimes. Or denying that Alija Izetbegovic brought in Islamic militants in Yugoslavia. Is "negationism" even a word? Is the study of offering an argument different from the mainsteam about events in Yugoslavia false history? I think not. The American public has no idea that radical Islamic jihadists were over there and if you look at the evidence and the graphic photos of butchered Serbs around Srebrenica in 1995 by Naser Oric and his men. Criticizing Yugoslavia is not negationism. It is criticizing it with new evidence. This is offensive and does not take into account the various war crimes of the Army BiH, such as beheadings. Sky News reporter Tim Marshall did a report on Bosnia, in which he found video footage of Muslim war crimes on the tape. Rade Rogic was a Serbian POW beheaded by Muslim war crimes. How come denial of the Serbian crimes is not put The documentary Istina available on YouTube, also presents Croatian and Muslim war crimes. Yet denial of Croatian and Muslim crimes is not considered to be negationism. I am concerned with the paragraph that says Serbian War Crimes. History is written with political agenda because history is written by the victors and looking through their agenda. I question the legitimacy of this article, because historiography these days is laced with political agendas, especially on college campuses.
How come denial of the expulsion of the Serbs from the Krajina isn't listed here? Denial of Croat War crimes of World War II, especially those of the Ustase should be posted here as well. Denial of the fact that Izetbegovic was an Islamist and had links and advocated Radical Islamic ideas and was jailed for them in th 80s, should also be listed. Denying the crimes is a pretty strong word to be used in this sentence. Pamela Geller and Julia Gorin merely found evidence of Islamic jihadists in Bosnia and pointing out that the Izetbegovic faction was Islamist. How come denial of persecution of Serbs is not listed here?
Denying crimes is not negationism because people do not like to wrestle such ugly topics. No one wants to be accused of genocide and genocide is an ugly term. Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for genocide and nothing more. The article fails to take into account that John R. Schindler found evidence of Izetbegovic's Islamism. Denial is not negationism because if negationism is even a word, when the American public does not realize that Anti-Serbian propaganda of the evil Serbs was regularly aired on CNN and Serbs do not like to be called an evil bunch of fascists and so forth. Criticizing Srebrenica and the shrine-like obsession with the topic is not wrong. Indepedent investigators found evidence and used proper scientific research with DNA evidence, that some in the body count were misidentified as Muslims when in fact they were Serbs. Some of the "dead" in the body count were still leaving. The UN even has people that support the Serbs. The UN fact-finding teams over there were thorough and some of the figures were inflated by the media, because the media tends to exaggerate. The Muslims over there were jihadists. One of their popular songs was "We are Allah's Army. For Islam we fight" or Shahid's Depature Shehidski Rastanak by Safet Isovic, or other jihadist-themed music over ther. S The American public does not know the truth about Bosnia or that the Sarajevo Islamic leadership wanted an Islamic state over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 ( talk) 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 ( talk) 71.116.34.150 ( talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 ( talk)
In the Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, on Answers.com, Izetbegovic was listed as being arrested for Islamist activities in the 1980s by the Yugoslavian authorities for subversion. Izetbegovic was noted for his Islamist ideas in Bosnia and he was feared by Serb and Croat alive.
The Islamists in Bosnia seized power and tried to turn the country into an Islamic state. Evan F. Kohlmann has written a book about Islamist agenda and the coming Islamic Caliphate in Bosnia, along with photographs on the internet of Bosnian soldiers wearing jihadist uniforms during a parade in Zenica in 1995. The Bosnians were feared by the Serbs. There are numerous accounts of Serbs being killed in gruesome ways, such as by impalement on a spear, and gouging their eyes out, raping women, UN reports in Bosnia where high numbers of Serbian women were raped in 1995. The Muslim paramilitaries around Srebrenica led by Oric destroyed a church. 50 Serbian villages were cleansed of their inhabitants. The film Istina on YouTube documents the war crimes of the Croats aand Muslims that were unreported in the Western media. The Croat and Muslim crimes in the Krajina and Bosnia are not mentioned. The HVO and HOS paramilitaries are not mentioned here and their heritage going back to the Ustase. Yet, this hypocritical pagges does not mentioned denialism by Marko Perkovic Thompson in his music or the denialism in Croatia that actively denies the Holocaust. Believe it or not, criticizng Bosnia in this way, has legitimate scholarship from historans like Edward S. Herman, or Fransisco Gil-White, how published several papers criticizing the war in Bosnia, exposes Izetbegovic's Islamism and the militant Islam practiced by Izetbegovic and his desire for a Muslim state. Denial of Markale Marketplace is not listed, even though official UN reported stated that the Muslim fired mortar fire from Muslim-held areas of the city and staged an incident. David Hackworth is a noted critic of the war in Bosnia and he states that Izetbegovic watched it from a bunker in Sarajevo. There are official UN reports that do say otherwise about Bosnia, are they "genocide denial" or "negationism" for offering a pro-Serb viewpoint and denying Muslim and Croat war crimes is not even mentioned and the obvious anti-Serb bias is telling in that whole paragraph. Please be a little more fair and honest with the article thank you. Republika Srpska has thorough investigations of the events, using professors from universities in Belgrade.
There are people that do not necessarily deny that there was a massacre at Srebrenica, but that many of the people killed there were soldiers armed with rifles shooting at Serb soldiers. Was it a massacre in the sense that the Muslims stood no chance against the Serbian army there with its better equipment and training and that they were massacred because they had no chance because they were beaten because they lacked the equipment the Serbs had. many of the dead there, that are listed are soldiers of the Bosnian Army that shot and participated in combat against Serb forces. Racak for example was a watershed moment. The people that died there were KLA fighters that shot at Serb forces. They even found the smell of gunpowder on one of the victims. The official Serbian police report says that they were responding to a disturbance in Racak and that a gun battle took place there. The KLA dresses their dead to look like civilians to fool observers and it worked for them. They do not deny that these events took place, but HOW they took place in the Balkans wars. I wonder how denial of Racak and Srebrenica is featured, but not denial of war crimes that took place elsewhere in Bosnia by Serb, Croat, and Muslim alike.
Why isn't that covered more thoroughly? I don't know. What I do know is that ALL SIDES committed war crimes over there. That's a proven and documented fact. You cannot deny that. All sided committed war crimes and has their fair share of war criminals. Denying should be a form of negationism.
02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 ( talk)
71.116.34.150 ( talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.serbijana.com/Textovi/PDF/US/us%20army%20fmso%20-%20bosna1.pdf
22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
See, critcism of the Balkan wars is legitimate and smearins any legitimate criticism as illegitimate when people have legitimate questions, is complete crap. People have a right to oppose things that they do not like, and legitimate reports based on UN reports in Bosnia, is quite legitimate because independent investigators have found data about srebrenica, contradicting the official accounts because they have exemued about 6,500 bodies after six years of digging, usinh legitimate methods.
Being opposed to war in Bosnia an Kosovo based on legitimate reasons is not illegitimate at all, and should be treated as a legitimate counterpoint argument, instead of being ridiculed like it it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rferl.org/content/bosnian_muslim_sentenced_for_war_crimes_against_croats/24205035.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.11.158.220 (
talk)
22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There was ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Sarajevo. The ethnically-cleansed refugees have a fair chance of living, even though they were driven from their homes, and I am not saying it was okay, but at least the refugees have a fair chance at living and they can move elsewhere. Ethnic cleansing has been defined as not beng genocide because of people being moved, Wikipedia article, on the subject. Not excusing anyone. All sides practiced ethnic cleansing to create purely Serbian and Muslim zones during the war and these people live again, even though their homes are gone. At least they survived being killed.
23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical revisionism (denial) relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC) – I understand that a page is needed for the term negationism - I also see from the talk histories that the article's naming has been quite a battle. I think "negationism" is extremely important yet a confusing disambiguation from Historical revisionism. I understand from past posts that "historical revisionsim" is added into the title to increase traffic and familiarity of the term "negationism." I also, however, see that the term has created significant confusion about this page actually refers to.
My proposal is to change the main title to Historical revisionsim (denial), and to create a section specifically for the "negationism" discussion. This change would allow for negationism to become more widely understood while also providing a surrounding context for the "historical revisionism" part of the title.
From past talk sections:
As each author points out, negationism is another term for the practice of denial. By changing negationism to denial, we can then develop a contextual framework to clearly explain the practice of negationism as it deserves.
Here's my reasoning (from Wikipedias suggestions on naming pages):
Akay2 ( talk) 13:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment "Denial" is certainly better than "negationism", which sounds made up. But denialism already has its own article. The disambiguator should not be a synonym, but a category that the article is an item within. Kauffner ( talk) 01:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Yes, the disambiguator should be a category and not a synonym (my two cents are that denial is a category, but I gotcha - and I hadn't seen the
denialism article, thanks!). And I’m agreed that it shouldn’t be “political” – I can see how that would open a whole array of problems.
And I think I understand why you say “denial” could make it seem like we oppose real revisionism… The title should be read: Historical revisionism as denial, not the denial of Historical revisionism, but of course, we can’t guarantee that. I concede on that point, too.
Can you clarify the point about Britain/America? I’ve read the paragraph so many times I’ve confused myself. Did you mean that in America the term historical revisionism tends to refer to the process of establishing good history, and in Britain the term pejoratively refers to negationism/denialism (with the exception of academic journals)? If that’s the case, then it would logically follow to have the “Historical revisionism” page as the American understanding, and the “Historical revisionism (negationism)” page as the British understanding, yes? And that’s what lead to the choice of Negationism as the title.
Really, I would like the point of this article to be more widely understood (in America, too!). Instead of “denial” Is there a different term we can use? Akay2 ( talk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
An example of where revisionism has bitten an historian is over the RAF's bombing of Germany: Jörg Friedrich stated to the British Press that he is a revisionist historian (in the professional sense of the term as his book emphasised bombing from the point of view of those on the ground rather than the more traditional POV of those in the air) which the British press chose to interpret as "he acknowledges he is a revisionist" (the word acknowledges making it sound like a crime) in the negative sense as they use it -- as it is used in this Wikipedia article (see Harding, Luke (21 October 2003). "German historian provokes row over war photos". The Guardian.) -- PBS ( talk) 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There have been a number of scholars and political activists who have publicly disagreed with mainstream views of Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav wars of 1991-1999. Among the points of contention are whether the victims of massacres such as the Račak massacre and Srebrenica massacre were unarmed civilians or armed resistance fighters, whether death tolls were inflated, and whether prison camps such as Sremska Mitrovica camp were sites of mass war crimes. Scholars, commentators, and activists who have taken contrarian/negationist views, arguing that reports of Serbian war crimes were exaggerated, include Diana Johnstone,[31] Lewis MacKenzie,[32][33] Milorad Dodik,[34] Pamela Geller[35][36] and Julia Gorin.[37]
What is meant by negationist/contrarian views of the article paragraph as stated above? They do not do this just to be contrary, crimes were committed on all sides in Yugoslavia and that does not minimize Serbian crimes in Bosnian Herzegovina as stated above. The investigative report of the Racak Massacre by a British team, later found out that they were KLA resistance fighters in civilian clothing. This is an official investigation. It is not negationism what these people say, becuase they are putting events into prespective, presenting the Serbian view of war crimes, the whole article does seem to not know the line between questioning whether or not death tolls were inflated, many of them were, but treating all claims of questioning the mainstream views on Bosnia Herzegovina as illegitimate revisionism when other investigations have numbers different from other investigations and ask questions and revise the history to be more correct. Not this is legitimate revisionism by these scholars and other people involved. And a part of historiography is to find out the numbers being correct and debate the evidence and this article just seemingly wants to shut down debate on the whole Yugoslavia thing. It is not negationism.
Besides, the real negationism is the failure of all 3 sides to admit that there were atrocities committed by the respective belligerents and the failure of the Bosnian Muslims to admit their fair share of war crimes.
It is not negationism at all.
18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk)
To show historical revisionism or negation of the record of American actions in Vietnam there would have to be a showing that there was an attempt by either historians or government to revise or negate the historical record. As far as I know, there have been no such attempt, but, in fact, rather candid disclosure of questionable activities. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the recent addition of a section on the Vietnam War does not contain any allegations of illegitimate Historical revisionism, so I am removing the edits that created it. PBS ( talk) 18:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. First of all, I'd like to state I am not in defense of any agenda, it's just that TheTimesAreAChanging made a remarks that I'd like to clear out. I can't understand how citing the total amount of bombing in Indochina and Japan qualifies as original research. It is not original research for Wikipedia's definition, as you could see at the page you cited by The TimesAre..., and it is not original research for academic standards.
The sub-sections in the section "Examples" are meant to be examples of negationism (not a definitive list of such). As such they should be clear and concise so that a person reading this article can then use the information contained in the article to decide for themselves whether another example they come across in a book or newspaper is a legitimate case of historical revisionism or an illegitimate one.
What is the section "Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings" trying to say? Who is accused of negationism and who is making the accusations? What I read is a section that contains three sentences that do not seem to be linked in any way, other than by implication and that would be a SYN.
So unless it can be cleaned up so that it is clear and coherent, I suggest that the section is removed. -- PBS ( talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The section on Macedonia a) doesn't cite any sources, and b) is veeery politically tendentious. It should be either shaped up or deleted. 196.202.193.190 ( talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no judgement whether the section in question describes actual revisionism or not. However in the current state it is completely inacceptable in wikipedia. All references given are to works of people who are labelled revisionist by this wikipedia article and no references actually argue that they are revisionist. In other words, the section is nothing but slander of some authors. In mild wikipedia terms: original research, an opinion of a wikipedian who read, e.g., the cited article by Diana Johnstone and concluded it is revisionist. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Copied from the article
genocide denial
|
---|
|
Once again, you cannot overemphacise that wikipedia is not in the position to offer wikipedian's judgement, especially a negative one. "Negationism" is a heavy judgement, not a "physical fact", and therefore it must be clearly stated who gives this judgement and with respect to which statements of the accused. Diana Johnstone is a good example of gray area: from links provided by PBS I read that Diana wrote: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children,” in reference to the fact that the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. While her opinion may be disagreed (I am not expert in details legal definitions of "genocide"), it does sound reasonable: she does not deny the massacre itself, nor its scale, but disagrees as to how to classify it. She is entitled to her opinion (just like those with a bad opinion about her opinion) and it is to be respected as such, unless we can prove that arguments she uses are deliberately or cluelessly falsified. Only then the sticker "negationism" has due and independent weight. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Where's this country ? Azerbaijan has a state program that magnifies the Albanians as the alleged ancestors of Azerbaijanis for historical study in territorial disputes with Armenia StarBoyGarik ( talk) 08:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
"They do this by downplaying its scale and whitewashing other Nazi war crimes while emphasizing the suffering of the Axis populations at the hands of the Allies and stating or implying that the Allies committed war crimes as well."
The sentence in bold should probably be rewrote, it seems to imply that Axis populations did not suffer during WWII, or that the Allies never committed questionable acts during WWII. I don't think that emphasizing the suffering of Axis civilians during, say, the bombing of Dresda or Hiroshima, qualifies as "negationism". I do believe in the Holocaust but I believe that bombing Hiroshima was a war crime, too... that makes me a "negationist"? -- Lupo1982 ( talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Some parts of the entire article text tend to mix revisionist claims on facts with moral assessments, in particular Holocaust denial with the assessment of Allied war crimes, or whether they may be compared to the Holocaust. However, the term of historical revisionism should be limited to claims on facts, not end up in a moral dispute. I deleted a part of the "Denial" section, which went beyond defining Historical revisionism, but headed towards equating the denunciation of Allied war crimes with Holocaust denial, albeit the first is a subjective assessment and not a claim on facts.
Also an object of reworking should be the part of the paragraph "Holocaust denial" where Holocaust deniers are related to the formerly large group of expelled Germans (Heimatvertriebene), with one claim already marked as "Citation needed" (that they blame Jews for the suffering of the expelled). The text is lacking clues where and how Holocaust deniers successfully searched for support among expelled Germans (more than among other social groups of post-war Germany), and even if there had been such support, it would contribute little to an article about Historical revisionism in general (but blow it up unnecessarily). If such a connection existed, it should be in the specific article about Holocaust denial. BBirke ( talk) 17:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There is still a great difference between denying the Holocaust as a FACT and controversial OPINIONS about moral implications. To accept the Holocaust not "only" as a genocide crime, but as an unique, exceptional atrocity over all other mass murders and genocides, on the other hand all Allied atrocities as justified or at least condonable, is an OPINION (and in the latter part, a morally highly questionable one). Holocaust denial is simply wrong, no matter what moral implications one might draw from that. Rejecting the previously mentioned opinion in it's extreme form, is a legitimate, different opinion far from Holocaust denial, justification or even preparing similar crimes in the future.
There may be wrong and exaggerated numbers on casualites in Dresden. So, it's likely far closer to the proposed minimum of 25000 instead of an exaggerated 250000. Does this change the fact that especially the British air force commonly performed air raids targeted against civilians, even before WW2 in British colonial territories, and that Dresden was only the most infamous out of hundreds of such air raids?
Maybe the problem is that the Wikipedia article about historical revisionism is split into two, one rather serious about scientific revisionism, and the other (negationism) about "revisionism" on politically hot topics (genocides, esp. Holocaust), which are often subject to social and political dogmatism. Controversy is hindered by the risk of getting shunned, attacked or even become subject to criminal punishment (multiple countries penalize claims that their gouvernments have committed crimes, Holocaust denial in Germany being an exception). Recognizing Holocaust denial as a forgery and junk science should not mean that one also has to accept Allied war crimes in WW2 as justified or condonable. Text parts which equate a moral comparison of Allied war crimes and Holocaust, with Holocaust denial are plainly misleading and defamatory, even if these comparisons do frequently occur together with Holocaust denial or with intention to downplay it. BBirke ( talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How is denial of Serbian war crimes unacceptable, when denial of Muslim and Croat war crimes in the war is acceptable? This article is one-sided on the whole Yugoslavia thing, and negates to mention that all sides involved committed war crimes in that conflict. They do not deny that the camps exist, because they do, but HOW THEY were used. This is not denial of Serbian war crimes. Or denying that Alija Izetbegovic brought in Islamic militants in Yugoslavia. Is "negationism" even a word? Is the study of offering an argument different from the mainsteam about events in Yugoslavia false history? I think not. The American public has no idea that radical Islamic jihadists were over there and if you look at the evidence and the graphic photos of butchered Serbs around Srebrenica in 1995 by Naser Oric and his men. Criticizing Yugoslavia is not negationism. It is criticizing it with new evidence. This is offensive and does not take into account the various war crimes of the Army BiH, such as beheadings. Sky News reporter Tim Marshall did a report on Bosnia, in which he found video footage of Muslim war crimes on the tape. Rade Rogic was a Serbian POW beheaded by Muslim war crimes. How come denial of the Serbian crimes is not put The documentary Istina available on YouTube, also presents Croatian and Muslim war crimes. Yet denial of Croatian and Muslim crimes is not considered to be negationism. I am concerned with the paragraph that says Serbian War Crimes. History is written with political agenda because history is written by the victors and looking through their agenda. I question the legitimacy of this article, because historiography these days is laced with political agendas, especially on college campuses.
How come denial of the expulsion of the Serbs from the Krajina isn't listed here? Denial of Croat War crimes of World War II, especially those of the Ustase should be posted here as well. Denial of the fact that Izetbegovic was an Islamist and had links and advocated Radical Islamic ideas and was jailed for them in th 80s, should also be listed. Denying the crimes is a pretty strong word to be used in this sentence. Pamela Geller and Julia Gorin merely found evidence of Islamic jihadists in Bosnia and pointing out that the Izetbegovic faction was Islamist. How come denial of persecution of Serbs is not listed here?
Denying crimes is not negationism because people do not like to wrestle such ugly topics. No one wants to be accused of genocide and genocide is an ugly term. Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for genocide and nothing more. The article fails to take into account that John R. Schindler found evidence of Izetbegovic's Islamism. Denial is not negationism because if negationism is even a word, when the American public does not realize that Anti-Serbian propaganda of the evil Serbs was regularly aired on CNN and Serbs do not like to be called an evil bunch of fascists and so forth. Criticizing Srebrenica and the shrine-like obsession with the topic is not wrong. Indepedent investigators found evidence and used proper scientific research with DNA evidence, that some in the body count were misidentified as Muslims when in fact they were Serbs. Some of the "dead" in the body count were still leaving. The UN even has people that support the Serbs. The UN fact-finding teams over there were thorough and some of the figures were inflated by the media, because the media tends to exaggerate. The Muslims over there were jihadists. One of their popular songs was "We are Allah's Army. For Islam we fight" or Shahid's Depature Shehidski Rastanak by Safet Isovic, or other jihadist-themed music over ther. S The American public does not know the truth about Bosnia or that the Sarajevo Islamic leadership wanted an Islamic state over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 ( talk) 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 ( talk) 71.116.34.150 ( talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 02:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC) 71.116.34.150 ( talk)
In the Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, on Answers.com, Izetbegovic was listed as being arrested for Islamist activities in the 1980s by the Yugoslavian authorities for subversion. Izetbegovic was noted for his Islamist ideas in Bosnia and he was feared by Serb and Croat alive.
The Islamists in Bosnia seized power and tried to turn the country into an Islamic state. Evan F. Kohlmann has written a book about Islamist agenda and the coming Islamic Caliphate in Bosnia, along with photographs on the internet of Bosnian soldiers wearing jihadist uniforms during a parade in Zenica in 1995. The Bosnians were feared by the Serbs. There are numerous accounts of Serbs being killed in gruesome ways, such as by impalement on a spear, and gouging their eyes out, raping women, UN reports in Bosnia where high numbers of Serbian women were raped in 1995. The Muslim paramilitaries around Srebrenica led by Oric destroyed a church. 50 Serbian villages were cleansed of their inhabitants. The film Istina on YouTube documents the war crimes of the Croats aand Muslims that were unreported in the Western media. The Croat and Muslim crimes in the Krajina and Bosnia are not mentioned. The HVO and HOS paramilitaries are not mentioned here and their heritage going back to the Ustase. Yet, this hypocritical pagges does not mentioned denialism by Marko Perkovic Thompson in his music or the denialism in Croatia that actively denies the Holocaust. Believe it or not, criticizng Bosnia in this way, has legitimate scholarship from historans like Edward S. Herman, or Fransisco Gil-White, how published several papers criticizing the war in Bosnia, exposes Izetbegovic's Islamism and the militant Islam practiced by Izetbegovic and his desire for a Muslim state. Denial of Markale Marketplace is not listed, even though official UN reported stated that the Muslim fired mortar fire from Muslim-held areas of the city and staged an incident. David Hackworth is a noted critic of the war in Bosnia and he states that Izetbegovic watched it from a bunker in Sarajevo. There are official UN reports that do say otherwise about Bosnia, are they "genocide denial" or "negationism" for offering a pro-Serb viewpoint and denying Muslim and Croat war crimes is not even mentioned and the obvious anti-Serb bias is telling in that whole paragraph. Please be a little more fair and honest with the article thank you. Republika Srpska has thorough investigations of the events, using professors from universities in Belgrade.
There are people that do not necessarily deny that there was a massacre at Srebrenica, but that many of the people killed there were soldiers armed with rifles shooting at Serb soldiers. Was it a massacre in the sense that the Muslims stood no chance against the Serbian army there with its better equipment and training and that they were massacred because they had no chance because they were beaten because they lacked the equipment the Serbs had. many of the dead there, that are listed are soldiers of the Bosnian Army that shot and participated in combat against Serb forces. Racak for example was a watershed moment. The people that died there were KLA fighters that shot at Serb forces. They even found the smell of gunpowder on one of the victims. The official Serbian police report says that they were responding to a disturbance in Racak and that a gun battle took place there. The KLA dresses their dead to look like civilians to fool observers and it worked for them. They do not deny that these events took place, but HOW they took place in the Balkans wars. I wonder how denial of Racak and Srebrenica is featured, but not denial of war crimes that took place elsewhere in Bosnia by Serb, Croat, and Muslim alike.
Why isn't that covered more thoroughly? I don't know. What I do know is that ALL SIDES committed war crimes over there. That's a proven and documented fact. You cannot deny that. All sided committed war crimes and has their fair share of war criminals. Denying should be a form of negationism.
02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 ( talk)
71.116.34.150 ( talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.serbijana.com/Textovi/PDF/US/us%20army%20fmso%20-%20bosna1.pdf
22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
See, critcism of the Balkan wars is legitimate and smearins any legitimate criticism as illegitimate when people have legitimate questions, is complete crap. People have a right to oppose things that they do not like, and legitimate reports based on UN reports in Bosnia, is quite legitimate because independent investigators have found data about srebrenica, contradicting the official accounts because they have exemued about 6,500 bodies after six years of digging, usinh legitimate methods.
Being opposed to war in Bosnia an Kosovo based on legitimate reasons is not illegitimate at all, and should be treated as a legitimate counterpoint argument, instead of being ridiculed like it it in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rferl.org/content/bosnian_muslim_sentenced_for_war_crimes_against_croats/24205035.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.11.158.220 (
talk)
22:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There was ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Sarajevo. The ethnically-cleansed refugees have a fair chance of living, even though they were driven from their homes, and I am not saying it was okay, but at least the refugees have a fair chance at living and they can move elsewhere. Ethnic cleansing has been defined as not beng genocide because of people being moved, Wikipedia article, on the subject. Not excusing anyone. All sides practiced ethnic cleansing to create purely Serbian and Muslim zones during the war and these people live again, even though their homes are gone. At least they survived being killed.
23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Historical revisionism (negationism) → Historical revisionism (denial) relisted -- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC) – I understand that a page is needed for the term negationism - I also see from the talk histories that the article's naming has been quite a battle. I think "negationism" is extremely important yet a confusing disambiguation from Historical revisionism. I understand from past posts that "historical revisionsim" is added into the title to increase traffic and familiarity of the term "negationism." I also, however, see that the term has created significant confusion about this page actually refers to.
My proposal is to change the main title to Historical revisionsim (denial), and to create a section specifically for the "negationism" discussion. This change would allow for negationism to become more widely understood while also providing a surrounding context for the "historical revisionism" part of the title.
From past talk sections:
As each author points out, negationism is another term for the practice of denial. By changing negationism to denial, we can then develop a contextual framework to clearly explain the practice of negationism as it deserves.
Here's my reasoning (from Wikipedias suggestions on naming pages):
Akay2 ( talk) 13:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment "Denial" is certainly better than "negationism", which sounds made up. But denialism already has its own article. The disambiguator should not be a synonym, but a category that the article is an item within. Kauffner ( talk) 01:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Yes, the disambiguator should be a category and not a synonym (my two cents are that denial is a category, but I gotcha - and I hadn't seen the
denialism article, thanks!). And I’m agreed that it shouldn’t be “political” – I can see how that would open a whole array of problems.
And I think I understand why you say “denial” could make it seem like we oppose real revisionism… The title should be read: Historical revisionism as denial, not the denial of Historical revisionism, but of course, we can’t guarantee that. I concede on that point, too.
Can you clarify the point about Britain/America? I’ve read the paragraph so many times I’ve confused myself. Did you mean that in America the term historical revisionism tends to refer to the process of establishing good history, and in Britain the term pejoratively refers to negationism/denialism (with the exception of academic journals)? If that’s the case, then it would logically follow to have the “Historical revisionism” page as the American understanding, and the “Historical revisionism (negationism)” page as the British understanding, yes? And that’s what lead to the choice of Negationism as the title.
Really, I would like the point of this article to be more widely understood (in America, too!). Instead of “denial” Is there a different term we can use? Akay2 ( talk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
An example of where revisionism has bitten an historian is over the RAF's bombing of Germany: Jörg Friedrich stated to the British Press that he is a revisionist historian (in the professional sense of the term as his book emphasised bombing from the point of view of those on the ground rather than the more traditional POV of those in the air) which the British press chose to interpret as "he acknowledges he is a revisionist" (the word acknowledges making it sound like a crime) in the negative sense as they use it -- as it is used in this Wikipedia article (see Harding, Luke (21 October 2003). "German historian provokes row over war photos". The Guardian.) -- PBS ( talk) 08:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There have been a number of scholars and political activists who have publicly disagreed with mainstream views of Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav wars of 1991-1999. Among the points of contention are whether the victims of massacres such as the Račak massacre and Srebrenica massacre were unarmed civilians or armed resistance fighters, whether death tolls were inflated, and whether prison camps such as Sremska Mitrovica camp were sites of mass war crimes. Scholars, commentators, and activists who have taken contrarian/negationist views, arguing that reports of Serbian war crimes were exaggerated, include Diana Johnstone,[31] Lewis MacKenzie,[32][33] Milorad Dodik,[34] Pamela Geller[35][36] and Julia Gorin.[37]
What is meant by negationist/contrarian views of the article paragraph as stated above? They do not do this just to be contrary, crimes were committed on all sides in Yugoslavia and that does not minimize Serbian crimes in Bosnian Herzegovina as stated above. The investigative report of the Racak Massacre by a British team, later found out that they were KLA resistance fighters in civilian clothing. This is an official investigation. It is not negationism what these people say, becuase they are putting events into prespective, presenting the Serbian view of war crimes, the whole article does seem to not know the line between questioning whether or not death tolls were inflated, many of them were, but treating all claims of questioning the mainstream views on Bosnia Herzegovina as illegitimate revisionism when other investigations have numbers different from other investigations and ask questions and revise the history to be more correct. Not this is legitimate revisionism by these scholars and other people involved. And a part of historiography is to find out the numbers being correct and debate the evidence and this article just seemingly wants to shut down debate on the whole Yugoslavia thing. It is not negationism.
Besides, the real negationism is the failure of all 3 sides to admit that there were atrocities committed by the respective belligerents and the failure of the Bosnian Muslims to admit their fair share of war crimes.
It is not negationism at all.
18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 ( talk)
To show historical revisionism or negation of the record of American actions in Vietnam there would have to be a showing that there was an attempt by either historians or government to revise or negate the historical record. As far as I know, there have been no such attempt, but, in fact, rather candid disclosure of questionable activities. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the recent addition of a section on the Vietnam War does not contain any allegations of illegitimate Historical revisionism, so I am removing the edits that created it. PBS ( talk) 18:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. First of all, I'd like to state I am not in defense of any agenda, it's just that TheTimesAreAChanging made a remarks that I'd like to clear out. I can't understand how citing the total amount of bombing in Indochina and Japan qualifies as original research. It is not original research for Wikipedia's definition, as you could see at the page you cited by The TimesAre..., and it is not original research for academic standards.
The sub-sections in the section "Examples" are meant to be examples of negationism (not a definitive list of such). As such they should be clear and concise so that a person reading this article can then use the information contained in the article to decide for themselves whether another example they come across in a book or newspaper is a legitimate case of historical revisionism or an illegitimate one.
What is the section "Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings" trying to say? Who is accused of negationism and who is making the accusations? What I read is a section that contains three sentences that do not seem to be linked in any way, other than by implication and that would be a SYN.
So unless it can be cleaned up so that it is clear and coherent, I suggest that the section is removed. -- PBS ( talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The section on Macedonia a) doesn't cite any sources, and b) is veeery politically tendentious. It should be either shaped up or deleted. 196.202.193.190 ( talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no judgement whether the section in question describes actual revisionism or not. However in the current state it is completely inacceptable in wikipedia. All references given are to works of people who are labelled revisionist by this wikipedia article and no references actually argue that they are revisionist. In other words, the section is nothing but slander of some authors. In mild wikipedia terms: original research, an opinion of a wikipedian who read, e.g., the cited article by Diana Johnstone and concluded it is revisionist. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Copied from the article
genocide denial
|
---|
|
Once again, you cannot overemphacise that wikipedia is not in the position to offer wikipedian's judgement, especially a negative one. "Negationism" is a heavy judgement, not a "physical fact", and therefore it must be clearly stated who gives this judgement and with respect to which statements of the accused. Diana Johnstone is a good example of gray area: from links provided by PBS I read that Diana wrote: “However, one thing should be obvious: one does not commit ‘genocide’ by sparing women and children,” in reference to the fact that the fact that the Serbs who conquered Srebrenica offered safe passage to women and children. While her opinion may be disagreed (I am not expert in details legal definitions of "genocide"), it does sound reasonable: she does not deny the massacre itself, nor its scale, but disagrees as to how to classify it. She is entitled to her opinion (just like those with a bad opinion about her opinion) and it is to be respected as such, unless we can prove that arguments she uses are deliberately or cluelessly falsified. Only then the sticker "negationism" has due and independent weight. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Where's this country ? Azerbaijan has a state program that magnifies the Albanians as the alleged ancestors of Azerbaijanis for historical study in territorial disputes with Armenia StarBoyGarik ( talk) 08:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)