![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
![]() Archives |
---|
negationism 1 2 3 |
The two photos of Lenin speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square actually appear to be two different photos taken at different times. Many people, including Lenin, are in different positions. It's possible, but unlikely, that Trotsky and Kamenev were just never in the second photo, having left or entered (depending on the order in which they were taken) between the two. 71.82.5.145 ( talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I read the article intro and I found it a little POV. It contains sentences/words which put the topic in a negative light, such as "ignoring essential facts", "to distort", "it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities". I do not dare to change it since it is such a delicate topic and I am not a native speaker of english, but I'd like if some of you considered what I've said. Bye -- 87.10.191.186 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Other than the Holocaust is there any/many other areas of historical revisionism? Wikipedia seems to be fixated soley/primarily on Holocaust protection - the Ukranian hoocaust has its small group- there must be others. Are ther cases where what would have been called historical revision(negationism) turned out to have uncovered the truth and became the new orthodoxy? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
159.105.80.219 (
talk •
contribs) 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Search and you will find - the Lavon Affair ( went from a denied nonevent to admission after 50 years). A list of other - there must be hundreds - events in history that were uncovered by diligent research that gave a 189% change in the historical record. Many parts of the main concern of the antirevisionists - the holocaust - have been revised, often by believers. An historical event that doesn't change with time and reserch is suspect you would think. If every eyewitness was 100% correct, all the time, then why have "historians".
The mention of the novel "1984" as an example of negationism seems puzzling. I'm not certain if the article refrences the behavior of the fictional governmental entities in the novel or the novel itself as an example. 68.45.143.196 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Bill 5 December 2006
The question is - who is denying the truth. The negationism label sounds like a way to brand a historian who is getting too close to your ox. What is the term that describes someone who tries to hide an unpleasant fact from others - I hope it isn't mainstearm or legitimate or accredited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
denying "essential facts" - how does a fact become "essential". Can an "essential fact" be questioned scientifically? If an "essential fact" is impossible, is it "essential".
This article sounds foolish.
Indeed. The entire definition of Negationism is sophistry. "a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream History." Give me a type of revisionism that doesn't refute accepted History, and I'll show you how it isn't revisionism. The previous definition is no different than "the critical reexamination of historical facts" listed as the definition for Historical Revisionism. It is just framed differently.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or anything - I just see a division that doesn't actually exist. "Fact" isn't democratically determined, so how can a theory be false simply because it goes against "mainstream History". Anne Curry denies that it was 4:1 odds at Agincourt, does that make her wrong even though History traditionally accepts that "fact". Revisionism IS the denial of established History. If there is any difference between Holocaust Denial and Revisionism it is the use of sophistry, not disagreement with public opinion. Kelden ( talk • contribs). 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the part about Macedonianism seems slightly biased? 141.217.108.100 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 13/12/06 1:09 PM EST Dan
What about the President of Iran's comments about the Holocaust? Shouldn't that be mentioned here? I have heard that this is common among education of Muslims in Muslim countries- denial or complete absence of mention among Muslims. [1] poopsix 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you delve into what Muslim kids are taught you might open up a bag of worms. What are nonMuslim kids taught, if you get my drift.
Delve into what is passed off as history in the USA. The process has become more efficient these days "Operation Enduring Freedom" and the like. Revised in advance. 78.16.27.248 ( talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not clear that this section is dealing with out-right negationism, or just normal controversy surrounding historical events. Is there an objective independent source that calls what is happening negationism in order to verify? -- Stbalbach 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So there is a dispute about this issue. There are lots of disputes about lots of controversial historical events, but to be a case of historical revisionism (nagationism) someone needs to be falsifying the facts and distorting history. In this example it is not clear to me who is meant to be the negationist. Can someone please explain this to me so that the example can be clarified? If not then it should be deleted. -- PBS 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the above I have moved the section to the talk page until someone clarifies it:
>===Islamic invasion of India===
Some historians in India deny the atrocities committed by the invading Islamic armies during the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent in order to promote an image of historical "Hindu-Muslim communal amity". Authors like M.N. Roy have written that Islam had fulfilled a historic mission of equality and abolition of discrimination, and that for this, Islam had been welcomed into India by the lower castes. If at all any violence had occurred, it was as a matter of justified class struggle by the progressive forces against the reactionary forces, meaning the feudal Hindu upper castes [1] (this despite the fact that converts to Islam were subjected to the Caste system among South Asian Muslims).Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the conversions to Islam typically represented by the following schools of thought: [2]
Embedded within this lies the concept of Islam as a foreign imposition and Hinduism being a natural condition of the natives who resisted, resulting the failure of the project to Islamicize the Indian subcontinent and is highly embroiled with the politics of the partition and communalism in India. [2] Other reasons given for the size of the Muslim expansion are the genocide of Hindu's citation needed, migrations and the influence of Arab traders along the Indian Ocean. citation needed
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby ( School of Oriental and African Studies) and Marxist figure Irfan Habib for its "agenda" and lack of accurate data in pre- census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence. [3] [4] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contended that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects." [5] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns. Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Muslim Caste System in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari. [6], where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes [7]. None of this is discussed in modern Indian historical scholarship. The allegation is that Marxist historiographers are propounding a biased and revisionist version of history that whitewashes the persecution of Hindus under Islamic rule, part of a rising trend of negationism in India in trying to justify the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and their alliance with the far left [8] [9] [10].
-- PBS 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The article presently includes Serbia and the Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism as examples of historical revisionism.
Because of its sinister connotations with Holocaust denial, the "revisionism" is a quite popular label to attempt to taint political opponent. Allowing these two isolated examples, by no means widely accepted as examples of "historical revisionism" while ignoring other which are better suited as examples of historical revisionism, this article is being used for political purposes. I suggest that these two examples be removed or extensively altered. Cheers Osli73 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments on your reasoning here:
Cheers Osli73 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish Inquisitor, I'll reiterate my comments above for clarity:
Do you agree that we take out these examples? Otherwise, the only possible next step as I see it is to take this to an administrators notice board for comments. Regards Osli73 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this is much better! A couple of comments though:
All the best Osli73 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that Balkan nationalism includes a lot of historical revisionism (as, in fact, does almost all nationalism). However, if we are going to use this as an example, it should be based on some reputable sources claiming it as such. We should not be the ones citing various examples of nationalist historical propaganda and then calling this historical revisionism. Since this is a popular word to sling at opponents, we have to watch out for 'sources' where the term is used in a polemic way by non-experts. Eg just because a Serbian nationalists/commentator calls Bosniak history 'revisionism' doesn't necessarily make it so. In the meantime, I believe we should remove these two examples until we can replace them with a reworked example. Regards Osli73 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A very current example of the use of the term historical revisionism would be the ongoing spat between Italy and Croatia regarding events at the end of WWII. Here is commentary by the
BBC. Cheers
Osli73
16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the Serbia & Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism aren't very good examples of historical revisionism and should be taken out. The other ones in there are less controversial and could stay. Regards
Osli73
18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Following the above discussion I have acted to remove the two examples in qustion. Regards Osli73 10:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Googling for "Crypto-revisionism" (excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites like answers.com) I get only 58 hits. [3] That seems kind of low for it to be considered an established term and for us to know enough about it to include it in the article. If we can't find any good sources describing what it is we should take it out. Regards Osli73 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this section, recently added and moved here:
This has no reliable and verifiable sources to back it up as being historical revisionism. It also reads like original research. The examples used in this article are supposed to be well know, un-ambiguous, and clearly backed up by the best possible sources. Who called this thing in Korea "historical revisionism"? Was it an international body? Or was it someone who disagrees with Chinese policy and wants to label it as historical revisionism? Who are these critics who are calling it historical revisionism? Are there people who disagree with these critics? -- Stbalbach 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page
More generally, that sentence sounds like OR to me. One would imagine that a reliable peer-reviewed source has actually discussed the increasing use of the word and could be cited. Hornplease 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether Koenraad Elst is a fringe scholar or not (if he is so much the better to make the point), the point of the footnote is to show that the word is not commonly use in English and when it is it does not necessarily refer to the Holocaust. The phrase was used in an UNESCO "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" and as such is a valid reliable source not matter who the person was using the term (and in the citation only UNESCO is mentioned not Koenraad Elst). -- PBS 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a few changes to this. The problem is that the people who write this stuff keep sounding off about Koizumi, Yasukuni Shrine, textbooks, etc. What is needed is not the same old litany of complaints by "Chinese up in arms", but a sober look at the ways that historical revisionism occurs in Japan. I specifically removed the bit on Koizumi's visits to the shrine. This may be politically controversial, but it's hard to see how it qualifies as 'historical revisionism'.
Given the nature of the politics and feelings involved, it is probably predictable that this page will be used for Japan-bashing. But historical revisionism doesn't merely apply to such obvious targets as the Japanese. (Someone has deleted the section on Chinese historical revisionism with regard to Korean history -- another contentious issue. It appears that some things can be called "historical revisionism" and others can't. Very POV indeed!)
Bathrobe 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This section mentions attempts to downplay the atomic bombings, as revisionist. What about the fact that most of what is said about the bombings claiming they were a nuclear haulacaust is in fact revisionist?
Examples:
1. The atomic bombings were optional, unecessary, and Japan would have surrendered anyway. This op-ed in the New York Times proves otherwise. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/ in this article the Emperor's own advisors say that Japan would not have surrendered had the bomb not been dropped.
2. The atomic bombings were a haulacaust. The fact is the atomic bombings killed fewer people then firebombing, the invasion of Okinawa, ect . . . this article also shows why the bombing was a necessary military action http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/AtomBomb_Japan.html
3. Japan when it talks about the U.S. targeting civillians ignores the fact that through out the entire war the Japanese did not distinguish between civillians and combatents, until the atomic bombing at the very end.
This is all relevant information about how Japanese historians that refuse to acknoweledge their own war crimes, have attempted to attack Americans for a bombing that would not have happened had Japan not attacked the U.S. in the first place. 216.201.33.20 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Both terms refer to the same concept. Tazmaniacs 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The other article is full of a bias (non NPOV) that makes its contents unsuitable for this article, personally I would delete that article -- PBS 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, as it is too long and will swamp what is here. A link to it is enough / essential. Red Hurley 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this article is already too long. It is better to keep genocide denial as a separate article. Biophys 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fitting to add a paragraph or a few sentences mentioning history revisionism in regards to what some people might do with Wikipedia? I don't want to add this myself because I think it might be too bold of a statement, but it could be used as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwonam ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I have some doubts that the source, Daily Herald, can be considered as "reliable peer-reviewed academic work". Second, I do not deny that history of Russia was written anew several times. I am just a little bit surprized, that Wikipedia take sides. There is no mention of altered history in the "beacons of democracy" on the former Soviet Union space. Or celebration of SS in republics of Baltic Sea region is not historical denial? If needed, references to official laws can be provided easily. Or honouring in Ukrain the UPA, wihch fougth on the Nazi's side and responcible for about half of civilian losses? The veterans of this group are now heroes of nation by order of president Viktor Yushchenko. (For some reasons, wikipedia article about Ukrain does not mention those "non-essential" facts.) Finally, way of theach history in Russia is quite different from US swallowing of facts. Not all the information comes from the school books, especially related to recent history. A lot of topics are the subject of discussion, based on the newspapers, TV broadcasts and direct life experience. So my suggestion is to consider this chapter unbalanced and needed to be revised, or to exclude it as representing clear political preference of the author's point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.139.37 ( talk) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease ( talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29&diff=prev&oldid=126711190 "Historical revisionism" (also but less often in English "negationism" [11] is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as in:
Wikipedia is global, so the Indian view of the term negationism should also be included in this article. Negationism happens not only in the West.
have removed [4] this text as being an unsourced and pov synthesis. all material added to Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced. Doldrums ( talk) 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just restored a deletion of a cited quotation from Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, and expert witness at the Irving v. Lipstadt. The text was delete with the comment "rm non-notable book by WP:FRINGE author, rm uncited and OR". It is difficult to think of anyone who is better qualified to comment on the methods used by negationists than this man! -- PBS ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
From my talk page:
As the book title is being used to demonstrate the infrequent use of "negationism" in English I fail to see why your criticism that he is a fringe author is relevant. Please explain further -- PBS ( talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
What the point of the map? It has no relation to the content of the article - except that historical revisionists are anti-Semites, which means, among other things, not credible authorities. They are primarily know for their incredible holocaust denial.
Here's what the publisher (of #2) has to say about this book (as given by the LOC):
The source provide are all from reliable sources as defined in WP:V "and mainstream newspapers." (and the BBC which is also a reliable mainstream broadcaster) I simply selected them --from the first page returned by Google-- to show you that in the UK revisionism often used to mean illegitimate historical revisionism. I used Irving because it is easy to find and simply listed the articles on the first page that were clearly from the BBC and "mainstream newspapers." they were not meant to be a selection. But if you wish to look up more then try googling [japan revisionism site:uk] the very first returned is [8] like to choose which meaning that is? On page two [9] the term is clearly being used with a pejorative meaning. So this article is important and informative so that people can look up both meanings and judge from the context which meaning is being used. We are doing revisionists like Irving (and he does not tend to write about the Holocaust but about other things like the Bombing of Dresden where over which other historians like Evans have dammed his research) a favour if we do not have an article on the pejorative use of the term as it allows them to hide behind the legitimate use of the term. I do not think that they should be combined because they are two related but distinct meanings. As to your placing facts on the introduction. Do you really not know those meanings? -- PBS ( talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Dictionaries on "Revisionism
The phrase Historical revisionism is used differently by different people. There is no universal usage. It is probably though not exclusively a difference between British English and American English. -- PBS ( talk) 09:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Here's what I think you mean [10]. It's from the The American Historical Association (AHA) ]]. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
More:
"Here's what I think you mean" Here is what who means? -- PBS ( talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
How can an encyclopedia article be considered NPOV when its lede includes a sentence such as:
Might I suggest that everybody read WP:WTA and let's discuss a more neutral way to describe historical revisionism? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Philip, I understand what "brand" of revisionism the article is about, I just question the use of terms that seem strong and biased as noted above. (In fact, I don't disagree with the characterization of the historical revisionists, I just question its compliance with the principle of NPOV.) Maybe the same point can be made by using phrases such as "politically motivated" and "generally accepted view of history" (although this may be too broad and may apply to all revisionist historians). An alternative, suggested in WP:WTA#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint, might be to use definitions of this type of historical revisionism written by others and attribute them to their sources. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no point asking for a citation for summaries of sections that are fully cited in the main body of the article. For example "In some countries historical revisionism (negationism) of certain historical events is a criminal offense" is covered by the section Historical revisionism (negationism)#Law_and_historical_revisionism -- So unless the editor who put it there can give a good reason for it being there I will remove it along with other citations that seem to ignore the advise in Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations. -- PBS ( talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise why what is the purpose of {{ refimprove}} what other citations are needed that a {{ fact}} does not cover? As for {{ Cleanup}} what needs cleaning up? -- PBS ( talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In the above you are merely name dropping.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2008
The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" or a "convergence of evidence" that suggest that an event - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..." Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0202306704, p. 154.
"Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past.[1] In its legitimate form (see historical revisionism) it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate.[1]"
The result of the debate was consensus against the proposed move -- PBS ( talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Historical revisionism (negationism) → Negationism — synonym for disambiguated term; move to more appropriate name per WP:D — B.Wind ( talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Negationism is almost never used in English, so to change this name to negationism would be to create a neologism in English. This page was originally under the name "
historical revisionism (political)" but the extension "(political)" caused problems -- as can be seen on the archives of this talk page -- and negationism although not widely used was a convenient disambiguator extension for this page as an alternative to the original. --
PBS (
talk)
12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
![]() Archives |
---|
negationism 1 2 3 |
The two photos of Lenin speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square actually appear to be two different photos taken at different times. Many people, including Lenin, are in different positions. It's possible, but unlikely, that Trotsky and Kamenev were just never in the second photo, having left or entered (depending on the order in which they were taken) between the two. 71.82.5.145 ( talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I read the article intro and I found it a little POV. It contains sentences/words which put the topic in a negative light, such as "ignoring essential facts", "to distort", "it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities". I do not dare to change it since it is such a delicate topic and I am not a native speaker of english, but I'd like if some of you considered what I've said. Bye -- 87.10.191.186 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Other than the Holocaust is there any/many other areas of historical revisionism? Wikipedia seems to be fixated soley/primarily on Holocaust protection - the Ukranian hoocaust has its small group- there must be others. Are ther cases where what would have been called historical revision(negationism) turned out to have uncovered the truth and became the new orthodoxy? —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
159.105.80.219 (
talk •
contribs) 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Search and you will find - the Lavon Affair ( went from a denied nonevent to admission after 50 years). A list of other - there must be hundreds - events in history that were uncovered by diligent research that gave a 189% change in the historical record. Many parts of the main concern of the antirevisionists - the holocaust - have been revised, often by believers. An historical event that doesn't change with time and reserch is suspect you would think. If every eyewitness was 100% correct, all the time, then why have "historians".
The mention of the novel "1984" as an example of negationism seems puzzling. I'm not certain if the article refrences the behavior of the fictional governmental entities in the novel or the novel itself as an example. 68.45.143.196 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Bill 5 December 2006
The question is - who is denying the truth. The negationism label sounds like a way to brand a historian who is getting too close to your ox. What is the term that describes someone who tries to hide an unpleasant fact from others - I hope it isn't mainstearm or legitimate or accredited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
denying "essential facts" - how does a fact become "essential". Can an "essential fact" be questioned scientifically? If an "essential fact" is impossible, is it "essential".
This article sounds foolish.
Indeed. The entire definition of Negationism is sophistry. "a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream History." Give me a type of revisionism that doesn't refute accepted History, and I'll show you how it isn't revisionism. The previous definition is no different than "the critical reexamination of historical facts" listed as the definition for Historical Revisionism. It is just framed differently.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or anything - I just see a division that doesn't actually exist. "Fact" isn't democratically determined, so how can a theory be false simply because it goes against "mainstream History". Anne Curry denies that it was 4:1 odds at Agincourt, does that make her wrong even though History traditionally accepts that "fact". Revisionism IS the denial of established History. If there is any difference between Holocaust Denial and Revisionism it is the use of sophistry, not disagreement with public opinion. Kelden ( talk • contribs). 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the part about Macedonianism seems slightly biased? 141.217.108.100 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 13/12/06 1:09 PM EST Dan
What about the President of Iran's comments about the Holocaust? Shouldn't that be mentioned here? I have heard that this is common among education of Muslims in Muslim countries- denial or complete absence of mention among Muslims. [1] poopsix 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you delve into what Muslim kids are taught you might open up a bag of worms. What are nonMuslim kids taught, if you get my drift.
Delve into what is passed off as history in the USA. The process has become more efficient these days "Operation Enduring Freedom" and the like. Revised in advance. 78.16.27.248 ( talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not clear that this section is dealing with out-right negationism, or just normal controversy surrounding historical events. Is there an objective independent source that calls what is happening negationism in order to verify? -- Stbalbach 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So there is a dispute about this issue. There are lots of disputes about lots of controversial historical events, but to be a case of historical revisionism (nagationism) someone needs to be falsifying the facts and distorting history. In this example it is not clear to me who is meant to be the negationist. Can someone please explain this to me so that the example can be clarified? If not then it should be deleted. -- PBS 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the above I have moved the section to the talk page until someone clarifies it:
>===Islamic invasion of India===
Some historians in India deny the atrocities committed by the invading Islamic armies during the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent in order to promote an image of historical "Hindu-Muslim communal amity". Authors like M.N. Roy have written that Islam had fulfilled a historic mission of equality and abolition of discrimination, and that for this, Islam had been welcomed into India by the lower castes. If at all any violence had occurred, it was as a matter of justified class struggle by the progressive forces against the reactionary forces, meaning the feudal Hindu upper castes [1] (this despite the fact that converts to Islam were subjected to the Caste system among South Asian Muslims).Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the conversions to Islam typically represented by the following schools of thought: [2]
Embedded within this lies the concept of Islam as a foreign imposition and Hinduism being a natural condition of the natives who resisted, resulting the failure of the project to Islamicize the Indian subcontinent and is highly embroiled with the politics of the partition and communalism in India. [2] Other reasons given for the size of the Muslim expansion are the genocide of Hindu's citation needed, migrations and the influence of Arab traders along the Indian Ocean. citation needed
An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby ( School of Oriental and African Studies) and Marxist figure Irfan Habib for its "agenda" and lack of accurate data in pre- census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence. [3] [4] Sir Jadunath Sarkar contended that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects." [5] In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns. Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Muslim Caste System in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari. [6], where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes [7]. None of this is discussed in modern Indian historical scholarship. The allegation is that Marxist historiographers are propounding a biased and revisionist version of history that whitewashes the persecution of Hindus under Islamic rule, part of a rising trend of negationism in India in trying to justify the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and their alliance with the far left [8] [9] [10].
-- PBS 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The article presently includes Serbia and the Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism as examples of historical revisionism.
Because of its sinister connotations with Holocaust denial, the "revisionism" is a quite popular label to attempt to taint political opponent. Allowing these two isolated examples, by no means widely accepted as examples of "historical revisionism" while ignoring other which are better suited as examples of historical revisionism, this article is being used for political purposes. I suggest that these two examples be removed or extensively altered. Cheers Osli73 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments on your reasoning here:
Cheers Osli73 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The Spanish Inquisitor, I'll reiterate my comments above for clarity:
Do you agree that we take out these examples? Otherwise, the only possible next step as I see it is to take this to an administrators notice board for comments. Regards Osli73 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this is much better! A couple of comments though:
All the best Osli73 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that Balkan nationalism includes a lot of historical revisionism (as, in fact, does almost all nationalism). However, if we are going to use this as an example, it should be based on some reputable sources claiming it as such. We should not be the ones citing various examples of nationalist historical propaganda and then calling this historical revisionism. Since this is a popular word to sling at opponents, we have to watch out for 'sources' where the term is used in a polemic way by non-experts. Eg just because a Serbian nationalists/commentator calls Bosniak history 'revisionism' doesn't necessarily make it so. In the meantime, I believe we should remove these two examples until we can replace them with a reworked example. Regards Osli73 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A very current example of the use of the term historical revisionism would be the ongoing spat between Italy and Croatia regarding events at the end of WWII. Here is commentary by the
BBC. Cheers
Osli73
16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the Serbia & Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism aren't very good examples of historical revisionism and should be taken out. The other ones in there are less controversial and could stay. Regards
Osli73
18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Following the above discussion I have acted to remove the two examples in qustion. Regards Osli73 10:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Googling for "Crypto-revisionism" (excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites like answers.com) I get only 58 hits. [3] That seems kind of low for it to be considered an established term and for us to know enough about it to include it in the article. If we can't find any good sources describing what it is we should take it out. Regards Osli73 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this section, recently added and moved here:
This has no reliable and verifiable sources to back it up as being historical revisionism. It also reads like original research. The examples used in this article are supposed to be well know, un-ambiguous, and clearly backed up by the best possible sources. Who called this thing in Korea "historical revisionism"? Was it an international body? Or was it someone who disagrees with Chinese policy and wants to label it as historical revisionism? Who are these critics who are calling it historical revisionism? Are there people who disagree with these critics? -- Stbalbach 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page
More generally, that sentence sounds like OR to me. One would imagine that a reliable peer-reviewed source has actually discussed the increasing use of the word and could be cited. Hornplease 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether Koenraad Elst is a fringe scholar or not (if he is so much the better to make the point), the point of the footnote is to show that the word is not commonly use in English and when it is it does not necessarily refer to the Holocaust. The phrase was used in an UNESCO "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" and as such is a valid reliable source not matter who the person was using the term (and in the citation only UNESCO is mentioned not Koenraad Elst). -- PBS 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I made a few changes to this. The problem is that the people who write this stuff keep sounding off about Koizumi, Yasukuni Shrine, textbooks, etc. What is needed is not the same old litany of complaints by "Chinese up in arms", but a sober look at the ways that historical revisionism occurs in Japan. I specifically removed the bit on Koizumi's visits to the shrine. This may be politically controversial, but it's hard to see how it qualifies as 'historical revisionism'.
Given the nature of the politics and feelings involved, it is probably predictable that this page will be used for Japan-bashing. But historical revisionism doesn't merely apply to such obvious targets as the Japanese. (Someone has deleted the section on Chinese historical revisionism with regard to Korean history -- another contentious issue. It appears that some things can be called "historical revisionism" and others can't. Very POV indeed!)
Bathrobe 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This section mentions attempts to downplay the atomic bombings, as revisionist. What about the fact that most of what is said about the bombings claiming they were a nuclear haulacaust is in fact revisionist?
Examples:
1. The atomic bombings were optional, unecessary, and Japan would have surrendered anyway. This op-ed in the New York Times proves otherwise. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/ in this article the Emperor's own advisors say that Japan would not have surrendered had the bomb not been dropped.
2. The atomic bombings were a haulacaust. The fact is the atomic bombings killed fewer people then firebombing, the invasion of Okinawa, ect . . . this article also shows why the bombing was a necessary military action http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/AtomBomb_Japan.html
3. Japan when it talks about the U.S. targeting civillians ignores the fact that through out the entire war the Japanese did not distinguish between civillians and combatents, until the atomic bombing at the very end.
This is all relevant information about how Japanese historians that refuse to acknoweledge their own war crimes, have attempted to attack Americans for a bombing that would not have happened had Japan not attacked the U.S. in the first place. 216.201.33.20 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Both terms refer to the same concept. Tazmaniacs 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The other article is full of a bias (non NPOV) that makes its contents unsuitable for this article, personally I would delete that article -- PBS 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, as it is too long and will swamp what is here. A link to it is enough / essential. Red Hurley 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this article is already too long. It is better to keep genocide denial as a separate article. Biophys 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be fitting to add a paragraph or a few sentences mentioning history revisionism in regards to what some people might do with Wikipedia? I don't want to add this myself because I think it might be too bold of a statement, but it could be used as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwonam ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I have some doubts that the source, Daily Herald, can be considered as "reliable peer-reviewed academic work". Second, I do not deny that history of Russia was written anew several times. I am just a little bit surprized, that Wikipedia take sides. There is no mention of altered history in the "beacons of democracy" on the former Soviet Union space. Or celebration of SS in republics of Baltic Sea region is not historical denial? If needed, references to official laws can be provided easily. Or honouring in Ukrain the UPA, wihch fougth on the Nazi's side and responcible for about half of civilian losses? The veterans of this group are now heroes of nation by order of president Viktor Yushchenko. (For some reasons, wikipedia article about Ukrain does not mention those "non-essential" facts.) Finally, way of theach history in Russia is quite different from US swallowing of facts. Not all the information comes from the school books, especially related to recent history. A lot of topics are the subject of discussion, based on the newspapers, TV broadcasts and direct life experience. So my suggestion is to consider this chapter unbalanced and needed to be revised, or to exclude it as representing clear political preference of the author's point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.139.37 ( talk) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease ( talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29&diff=prev&oldid=126711190 "Historical revisionism" (also but less often in English "negationism" [11] is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as in:
Wikipedia is global, so the Indian view of the term negationism should also be included in this article. Negationism happens not only in the West.
have removed [4] this text as being an unsourced and pov synthesis. all material added to Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced. Doldrums ( talk) 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just restored a deletion of a cited quotation from Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, and expert witness at the Irving v. Lipstadt. The text was delete with the comment "rm non-notable book by WP:FRINGE author, rm uncited and OR". It is difficult to think of anyone who is better qualified to comment on the methods used by negationists than this man! -- PBS ( talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
From my talk page:
As the book title is being used to demonstrate the infrequent use of "negationism" in English I fail to see why your criticism that he is a fringe author is relevant. Please explain further -- PBS ( talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
What the point of the map? It has no relation to the content of the article - except that historical revisionists are anti-Semites, which means, among other things, not credible authorities. They are primarily know for their incredible holocaust denial.
Here's what the publisher (of #2) has to say about this book (as given by the LOC):
The source provide are all from reliable sources as defined in WP:V "and mainstream newspapers." (and the BBC which is also a reliable mainstream broadcaster) I simply selected them --from the first page returned by Google-- to show you that in the UK revisionism often used to mean illegitimate historical revisionism. I used Irving because it is easy to find and simply listed the articles on the first page that were clearly from the BBC and "mainstream newspapers." they were not meant to be a selection. But if you wish to look up more then try googling [japan revisionism site:uk] the very first returned is [8] like to choose which meaning that is? On page two [9] the term is clearly being used with a pejorative meaning. So this article is important and informative so that people can look up both meanings and judge from the context which meaning is being used. We are doing revisionists like Irving (and he does not tend to write about the Holocaust but about other things like the Bombing of Dresden where over which other historians like Evans have dammed his research) a favour if we do not have an article on the pejorative use of the term as it allows them to hide behind the legitimate use of the term. I do not think that they should be combined because they are two related but distinct meanings. As to your placing facts on the introduction. Do you really not know those meanings? -- PBS ( talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Dictionaries on "Revisionism
The phrase Historical revisionism is used differently by different people. There is no universal usage. It is probably though not exclusively a difference between British English and American English. -- PBS ( talk) 09:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
Here's what I think you mean [10]. It's from the The American Historical Association (AHA) ]]. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Ludvikus ( talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
More:
"Here's what I think you mean" Here is what who means? -- PBS ( talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
How can an encyclopedia article be considered NPOV when its lede includes a sentence such as:
Might I suggest that everybody read WP:WTA and let's discuss a more neutral way to describe historical revisionism? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Philip, I understand what "brand" of revisionism the article is about, I just question the use of terms that seem strong and biased as noted above. (In fact, I don't disagree with the characterization of the historical revisionists, I just question its compliance with the principle of NPOV.) Maybe the same point can be made by using phrases such as "politically motivated" and "generally accepted view of history" (although this may be too broad and may apply to all revisionist historians). An alternative, suggested in WP:WTA#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint, might be to use definitions of this type of historical revisionism written by others and attribute them to their sources. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no point asking for a citation for summaries of sections that are fully cited in the main body of the article. For example "In some countries historical revisionism (negationism) of certain historical events is a criminal offense" is covered by the section Historical revisionism (negationism)#Law_and_historical_revisionism -- So unless the editor who put it there can give a good reason for it being there I will remove it along with other citations that seem to ignore the advise in Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations. -- PBS ( talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise why what is the purpose of {{ refimprove}} what other citations are needed that a {{ fact}} does not cover? As for {{ Cleanup}} what needs cleaning up? -- PBS ( talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In the above you are merely name dropping.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2008
The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" or a "convergence of evidence" that suggest that an event - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..." Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0202306704, p. 154.
"Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past.[1] In its legitimate form (see historical revisionism) it is the reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate.[1]"
The result of the debate was consensus against the proposed move -- PBS ( talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Historical revisionism (negationism) → Negationism — synonym for disambiguated term; move to more appropriate name per WP:D — B.Wind ( talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Negationism is almost never used in English, so to change this name to negationism would be to create a neologism in English. This page was originally under the name "
historical revisionism (political)" but the extension "(political)" caused problems -- as can be seen on the archives of this talk page -- and negationism although not widely used was a convenient disambiguator extension for this page as an alternative to the original. --
PBS (
talk)
12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)