Jump to content

Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Archives

Archive 1

Colonialism

Rm modification by Stbalblach: "Colonialism has been a matter of debate in the past, for some justified as a "work of progress", such as Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden"; but also denounced by others, such as labeled imperialism by Marxist theory. The debate continues today, some historians contend that colonialism was in fact the domination of non-European people and the exploitation of natural resources needed for European growth. Thus, these historians believe that writing the history of colonialism as globally positive for the colonized people would be revisionistic. Others disagree and believe colonialism was not entirely black and white and had some positive benefits." The rm words are in italic. "Some" was reverted, because it is a general historian consensus that colonialism was in fact a form of domination. Denying of this consensus is a form of, precisely, historical "political" revisionism. Hence the debate in France. If you want to add this, quote an historian (i could quote thousands, since all historians that deserve this title agree on this). I then removed the other sentence : "Other disagree and believe colonialism was not entirely black and white" because no serious historian see things in a manicheic point of view. The debate is not: was colonialism good or bad, but can colonialism be, in a general sense, considered a positive work of enlightment, as stated the colonialist ideology (see Rudyard Kipling)? Today, no serious historian believe this, and even so-called "positive achievements" (schools, hospitals, roads and railways...) are not called like this by colonized people, as they they have more than anything help exploitation of natural resources and cultural imperialism. However, i did include the so-called "positive achievements" which a minority of persons would want to hide the more global negative achievements. Kaliz 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name change to Historical deniers

This is a proposed name change for the article to Historical deniers. The reasons are thus:

  1. Historical revisionism is a term with legitimate usage in the USA and some other English speaking countries, but in many parts of Europe it has no legitimate meaning and is a watchword for holocaust deniers and others with a political agenda. This has lead to some confusion and POV battles.
  2. Lately, the trend seems to be to call the holocaust revisionists holocaust deniers. This is clearly seen with a google search, and there are a number of essays that discuss this. "denier" seems to be a commonly used word now in place of revisionist.
  3. Historical deniers is a more appropriate description and less confusing. "Revisionist" is ambigious, deniers is clear. It lends no legitimacy to the deniers.

--Stbalbach 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Grammatically, wouldnt a historical denier be someone who has a history of denying? I vote we keep the current title. freestylefrappe 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The term originates from holocaust deniers, which is the current vouge description. Many people who fight the holocaust deniers are using the term "historical deniers", which is why I suggested it, because people are actually using the term -- unlike "political historical revisionism" which was completely made-up just for Wikipedia and is original research (I should know, I was the one who created the article). --Stbalbach 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep revisionism, specifically because it is neutral to both sides, deniers is loaded. Because this field is not limited to one event but covers several, many of which are seen from two and sometimes multiple viewpoints and still subject to debate, it would not be NPOV to pejoratively label any side of that debate. Vote to keep as is.Chris 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no neutral ground. To be included in this category implicity means someone who intentionally denies the truth (lies). --Stbalbach 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm with User:stbalbach on this one. If someone uses the term "historical deniers", he means to be nasty. I think we should move the article. Lampros 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The articles should be kept seperate. What is more the addition of "historical deniers" should be removed from the first line of this article. The UK Ireland and Malta are in Europe (Malta is in the EU). This is an English language article what the Germans, French, uncle Tom Cobly and all call people like Irving in their own languages is not relevent to this article. --PBS 13:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The first argument for this change appears to be: Historical revisionism is American usage, and that of some other English dialects (which?); but does not translate literally into other European languages. If so, that is only a problem for the international cross-referencers; we should Use English. Septentrionalis 03:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Grammar

If we're keeping this page with any name, I think we need to rewrite it. I can't follow what, if anything, the article is trying to say. Lots of sentences have grammatical or stylistic errors or are simply incoherent. If you feel strongly about the content of this article, please clean it up. You might not be happy with the job I or the cleanup crew does. Lampros 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your "rewrites" scare me. So do your comments that you think theres nothing in the article of value. Im not entirely sure you understand the nature of the material. --23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
My merge earlier was probably preemptory, if that's what you mean. I've spent a lot of time studying this topic and feel that I understand it pretty well. I don't feel there's much of value here, basically, because I feel that we could better deal with this issue through specific articles on "holocaust denial" or related subjects. If you don't want me to nominate this for cleanup why not pull out The Elements of Style and rewrite it yourself? Either way, please sign your comments. Lampros 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article on revisionism is terribly organized and hardly makes any sense at all. The worst part of the article is the opening paragraph before the table of contents because it confuses the subject of political historical revisionism with regular censorship. The writer's point with Germany's law against revisionism is a nuanced issue that does not belong at the beginning of this article - perhaps it will work better in a section all its own. The same goes with the writer's point with Turkey - this is an issue of censorship mixed with institutional revisionism and it does not make a good opening example of revisionism for a reader. I feel that the writer's confusion comes from simply not accepting a distinction between a plebian form of revisionism and institutional revisionism, which is often called propaganda. I have tried to bridge the gap in the opening paragraphy and have added a sentence to connect censorship and propaganda to revisionism but my efforts have been deleted by other users who are not sensitive to the distinctions between meaning.

When historical revisionism becomes part of the agenda of a political institution, the partisan message is communicated as propaganda and all dissenting opinion is prohibited by the practice of legalized censorship. This form of revisionism practiced all throughout history, from ancient times to modern. User:69.22.232.44 --11:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism

Thus, these historians believe that writing the history of colonialism as globally positive for the colonized people would be revisionistic.

Is it not the otherway around? Most Pre-WWII European historians wrote "that colonialism as globally positive" so to write that it was not is to be revisionistic. I think that this whole section should be removed because it falls within the remit of true historical revisionism particularly in countries which had large colonial empires. --PBS 16:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

1945 is more than fifty years ago; "revisionism" of colonialism is not compared to pre-WWII European historians, but to today's attempts to change widely accepted facts. There is no such thing as "true" historical revisionism, as if one had no political aims and the others did. History is a political matter. The problem is not even about having a "large colonial empires" or not (Germany didn't have a so big empire, because it lost two WW - it did engage in colonization, though, and uses the same means as other European powers). This February 2005 law claiming colonization had "globally good consequences" is so relevant an example that even President Jacques Chirac has decided to go against his own party and impose the abrogation of this law, as it has caused such an uproar! Stephen Smith has also been accused of "Negrophobia" by Verschave. Kaliz 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda

Currently the role of the French Army in Rwanda during the Genocide is under official investigation[1]. So IMHO this is a current issue not a good example political historical revisionism. If France is found guilty of genocide and in the future some French history books then deny it, this issue would be appropriate for this article. --PBS 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There has already been an investigation by the French Parliament, as shown by the endnote. It is a current issue. So what? Many Wikipedia entries are about current issues. "If France is found guilty..." by whom? France will probably never be found guilty, does it mean that it's not? "in the future some French history books then deny it": in the present some French journalist (current history) books deny it, while a lot of facts are widely recognized, including by the French Parliament report. See Génocide au Rwanda for a further Wikipedia discussion (in French) on the matter. Sorry, this is big deal... Kaliz 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good example (as I said before there is a French judicial investigation into the allegations of French complicity in the Genocide going on at the moment[2] it is a little early for it to be included as an example of Historical revisionism), and more importantly because no one in any westen media is disputing that a genocide took place. It is only an internal French squable about how culprable some French men were in the Genoncide. --PBS 20:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You have given no valid reasons of deleting Rwanda. Your conception of "how long time one needs before discussing things" is personal; others are sure that discussing the Rwandan genocide is something urgent. Yes, Pierre Péan among others is disputing there is genocide. That you don't know him doesn't mean he doesn't. Your "internal French squabble" concerns a genocide that happened in Rwanda. Lapaz 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I have a valid reason. IMO It is only an internal French squable about how culprable some French men were in the Genoncide. It is thefor not a good example for inclusion in this page. If anyone agreed with you by now another person would have reinstated it. --PBS 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Every major historical event has political historical revisionism. There should be some criteria for what gets included it in this article, since the possibilities are endless. IMO it should be illustrative and well known and well established and documented and non-controversial (ie. not on-going). If we can agree on some general criteria we wont have to fight over every example. -- Stbalbach 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, it was not me this time: Last removal by: http://www.ripe.net/whois 81.64.124.39 . I suggest that you leave it out unless someone else re-inserts it --PBS 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

White Mans burden

Ive added a NPOV tag and placed "citation needed" tags in specific places that need them. The entire first paragraph is made up of "weasel words" such as "thse historians" etc.. it is referenced to a French-language journalistic article that the vast majority of English language speaking Wikipedians will be unble to Verify for neutrality and accuracy. --Stbalbach 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No need to place a hundred "citation needed" where its obvious. I quickly put some names, which are really insufficient. Besides, it's not useful listing hundreds of historians: the point is precisely that the historian community agrees that colonialism can't be said to be "globally positive", at least the French historian community - and I suppose, living in a globalized world, that this is also maintained by the world historian community. This does not mean that they is no debate on colonialism; it simply means that it "globally" can't be considered positive. In the same sense that you're not going to say nazism was "globally positive" because Hitler invented the concept of highways ("autobahn").

Most importantly, I changed the title of the subsection to specifically refers to the 2005 French law, which has caused such a public uproar in France that president Jacques Chirac has gone against his own UMP majority which had voted it, "in a moment of distraction" they now allege. Colonialism is certainly not "globally positive", there is no need to cite this, and the scandal caused by this law is itself proof of this.

Concerning the foreign references, the vast majority of Wikipedians are - or will be - people from various backgrounds. English is an international language, hence mainly non-native English speaker write here. Henceforth, these references are useful, in particular when dealing with a specific non-English context. Beside, you can google translate them with a right-click on your mouse. Lapaz

As I said above, I think this whole example should be removed because I find it confusing and I do not think that it is useful in clarifing the expression. This is because it is by no means clear that the majority of historians, documentry writers etc, think that all colonialism was a bad thing. Further because many older histories argued that it was a good thing, it is not clear who are the rivisionists as the accepted view of history in this area has changed at least twice in the last 100 years and has varied in different countries at different times. For example post WWI the majority of the US establisment was against colonialism while the British were still infavour of it. --PBS 12:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree the whole section should be removed. This article is not supposed to be a complete list, but helpful examples. This example is not clear, it's actually very complex and needs a lot more than a small section to explain properly. I would suggest writing its own article - from that take a summary and add it here. --Stbalbach 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No way. PBS seems to think that "it is by no means clear that the majority of historians... think that all colonialism was a bad thing". Either the debate here is misunderstood, or it is bad faith. The law in question is being removed by Chirac precisely because all historians considered that colonialism was globally not a positive think (nobody ever said: "all colonialism"; we're talking about a global judgment; see Hitler's autobahn exemple above). Anyway, historical revisionism is punished by law in several European countries, among whom France. This should certainly be kept here. Lapaz

Non-political Revisionism

Why are Illig and Fomenko here, and not in a section of Historical Revisionism? Do their theses have a political purpose? Septentrionalis 22:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Moving them would involve a new subsection, discussing "revisionism w/o substantial mainstream impact" or some such.)

What is non-political revisionism? Can history be denied of political aims? Lapaz 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the Japanese?

The far-right Japanese politicians had been dening the fact that they slautered many Chinese, Korean, and South-east Asian civilians during their occupation in World War II. I don't understand why this and related articles talked about the Jews and the Holocaust, but nothing on the Chinese and the Japanese. The Japanese denials should be accounted in this and similar articles! AquaExecution 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your sourced contribution on the subject. PBS 09:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to the Yasukuni Shrine then. Lapaz 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes is lot better as name for the subsection than the more specific Japanese textbook controversy, which forms only part of the controversy about Japanese revisionism. Lapaz 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of unexplained changes

Reversing unexplained changes. Philip Baird, your POV is not a neutral point of view. There is absolutely no reason to delete the Rwandan genocide. If that doesn't enter your picture of the world, that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. Same goes for the discussion in France about colonialism. I'm sorry, you may think that's a controversial POV, but the fact remains that in France, it is the majority's pov, supported by the historian community. As i said before, do not attempt to turn the debate into a "oh! there's been good things done by colonialism". The debate is not this one, but a GLOBAL judgment on it. Again, see the Autobahn made by Hitler, nobody would say this is a proof of nazism' value to humanity. Also reverted changes about Atomic bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaka & about the Yasukuni shrines. Have you been reading the news lately? Did you not notice that Prime minister Koizumi is creating a political storm each time he goes to visit the Yasukuni shrine? And have you never heard about the Hibakushas, who accused the downgrading of the importance of the Hiroshima bombing of being a case of revionist history? Your POV is quite exclusive, I see... Lapaz

The changes were not unexplained, I have already placed comments about the sections on this page. As I salami sliced the changes I am not sure why you reverted all of them. Surly not all of them were bad?

  1. The changes I made to the Turkish section should not have been altered as having two different sections on the same thing is not very clear. I did not mention that here because I would have assumed everyone would agree with that.
  2. The Rwandan genocide is not a clear example (unless perhapses you are French) and as there is a French judicial investigation into the allegations of French complicity in the Genocide going on at the moment[3] it is a little early for it to be included as an example of Historical revisionism.
  3. The first paragraph in you French Colonial section is controversial and is not needed by the second paragraph which is is the section you argued up above is the meat of the section. The other changes I made to that section was to put it into English? Further in England most people are of the opinion that the Roman colonization of Britain was a good thing.
    • I did not bother to argue that many decedents of English speaking colonists think that on balance colonialism was a good thing. There are not many decedents of the British and Irish colonials clamoring to be repatriated to the UK and Ireland. So to argue that colonialism was on balance a negative
  4. We only need example to highlight the Japanese book example not two. The Yasukuni shrine has at best an oblique connection with historical revisionism. In my opinion you the A-bombing example is not an example of political historical revisionism. --PBS 18:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse for the mass revert, but this kind of things happen when massive changes have been done. Your inclusion of Turkey and Armenian genocide is certainly welcome. However, you deleted some stuff and didn't even put an Armenian genocide wikilink in it - or I've gone too fast. The Rwandan genocide may confuse you. It confuse all of us. But they are allegations of revisionism, in France of course, because it mainly concerns France. This is under no reasons a pretext to exclude it from this page (Wikipedia doesn't speak only about English topic). Your changes to the French colonial section are welcome as long as they don't pervert the sense of it. Your reference to the "Roman colonization of Britain" clearly shows that we are not speaking about the same thing, and I am amazed that you refer to that. By colonialism, it should be clear we are talking about the modern phenomenon starting from 19th century. I know you can retrace colonialism further on, but we are here talking about a phenomenon linked to the Industrial Revolution and capitalism. We could of course include the 1492 invention of America has part of this colonialism, as it has been argued that capitalism was already existent at that time, but certainly not the Roman colonization!. Your deletion of Japanese "Yasukuni shrine" is not at all an oblique connection, since it is politically at least as important as the textbook controversies, and carries on the same symbolic and affective charges. The A-bombing example may not be a good example in your opinion; discuss it with Japanese people, not with me. Lapaz

You stating that the colonization of the 13 British/Eastern American colonies not "the modern phenomenon starting from 19th century", (because they took place before 1800) but the colonization of American Mid West (eg Kansas,Arizona etc) and New Zealand are on balance negative"? How can you make such a distinction? -- PBS 05:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You mass-reverted again everything. This is going into edit war, so we will have to find a solution. We may be able to agree on something written together - that's the beauty of Wikipedia - but we will certainly not agree if we keep rv our changes. Henceforth:
  • can you give me a good reason for deleting the Rwandan genocide example except that's its far away from your concerns?
    • Quite the contrary please see the entry under France on the Genocide page which was added by me. No one is questioning that a genocide took place, it is just a domestic squabble amoung some French people if France was or was not involved. There is still a formal legal investigation going on in France and I do not think that that internal French squabble makes a very good example for an English language page, particularly as the jury is still out the magistrate is still investigating.
  • can you give me a good reason for deleting the Serdar Argic spam-attempt concerning the Armenian genocide?
    • This article should contain some examples but not hoover up every allegation that someone thinks is a good idea to include. I think It is better to stick to some clear cut examples like rule 301 which is clear and precise, the spamming example is not.
  • can you give me a good reason to center the lasting controversy concerning the Japanese downgrading or outward denial of war crimes committed during the period which the Japanese imperialism article refers to? Why should it be centered on the textbooks controversy, which is only one of the aspects of it, beside, for example, visits by the Prime minister - he is the official representant of Japan - to the famous Yasukuni Shrine?
    • Large sections of the Japanese people have never recognized that the Allies view on Japanese war crimes was correct. It can only be revisionist if the historical paradigm is being challenged. It is far from clear that the pecived Japanese national historical paradigm is being challenged when a formal government visit to the Yasukuni Shrine takes place. Even if the Japanese historical paradigm is the same as the rest of the world, it is far from clear that those visiting the shrine are challenging any historical accepted paradigm. It is at best an oblique example of political historical revisionism and as such is not a good example for this article.
  • I am open to any suggestions about improving the article concerning the February 2005 French law on colonialism. However, we should'nt mistake everything. If you really feel like the British colonization was "globally good" (i'd like some references though, as i was asked to provide ref for something that the French historian community agreed on), why not put a disclaimer such as: the French historian community believes that the colonization wasn't "globally good", as did the law stated, but this point of view is not shared by the world-wide historian community, in particular concerning the British colonization, which is considered, by example by such and such, as globally positive?
    • The paragraph with the law in it does not need the proceeding paragraph which in my opinion is pushing a POV that colonization was globally negative. It may be an agreed French POV ( and I am sure that many English people would go further and say that all French colonization was bad :-) ). But given that the majority of English speaking people do not have a French view of the world, I think that the first paragraph can be dropped, as the second paragraph says all that the first paragraph does without the POV baggage.
  • Beside, concerning your point about the US colonization, I certainly do not believe that the colonization was globally good for the colonized people (i.e. the Amerindians) & I'm sure the ultra-majority of mainstream historians agree with me. Lapaz 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You did not specify at first that it was a test of "globally good" for the aboriginal peoples. You talked about "globally good". Then you qualified it to just the 19th Century, (and you have not answered why just the C19th? What makes the Eastern seaboard of the US outside the secondary defintion but not Kansas or New Zealand?) Now you are trying to say you only meant the impact of colonization on the aboriginal people. It is because as soon as anyone probes that you have to change the definion of "globally good" and to whom it applies, that I think it is too complicated am issue to be a good example for this article. Eurpean colonization took place and it is impossible to know how the world would have been if it had not happened, so it is not possible to say whether it was good bad or indifferent. It is as it is and to try to say that there is an agreed historical paradigm for the effects of colonialism in all places or all times is pushing the envelop. As soon as you start to qualify it becomes complicated, too contrived, and is no longer a clean simple example for this article.

Having said that if you remove the paragrah which starts "Colonialism in the modern era has been a matter of debate in the past,..." then I think the rest of the French section makes a good example as does the Turkish 301 paragraph. --PBS 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've included again the Rwandan genocide and Japanese examples (see also above discussion about Japan). In fact, I think I finally understanding the reasons behind your ill-advised reverts. You wrote:

"It can only be revisionist if the historical paradigm is being challenged. It is far from clear that the pecived Japanese national historical paradigm is being challenged when a formal government visit to the Yasukuni Shrine takes place. Even if the Japanese historical paradigm is the same as the rest of the world, it is far from clear that those visiting the shrine are challenging any historical accepted paradigm. It is at best an oblique example of political historical revisionism and as such is not a good example for this article."

Henceforth, your conception of revisionist history is erroneous. Read, btw, this December comment (see above again) saying that:

"With regard to "In many European countries, the term "historical revisionism" means the same as "historical deniers". In the United States the term "historical revisionism" has legitimate meaning and is not the same as "historical deniers".", as person holding a history degree from the Unitied States, I disagree. History is what the record states, if new evidence comes to light allowing us to have a deeper understanding of events in some ways, nontheless the nearer in time an observer is to the event in question, the more weight should be given to his observations".

I thank this numbered user for his contribution, as first of all, it proves that claims that there is a legitimate ("neutral") revisionist history is a very special POV. Hence, the distinction between historical revisionism and historical revisionism (political) is a POV-fork. Furthermore, mind you, but revisionism is not the challenging of a "historical paradigm" as you would like it; at least, this tendancious definition is not the dominant one, and is a minority POV. The dominant definition of revisionism is challenging historical 'facts', such as the Holocaust, Japanese war crimes, or the Rwandan genocide (this one by claims of a "counter-genocide", which is equivalent to the Holocaust denial POV that the Dresde bombings are a form of "counter-genocide"). Please do not revert those edits again before reaching consensus. Lapaz 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have answered you specific points and instead of continuing down that productive path, which you initiated, you have decided to widen the debate. I think that is a mistake, and I would prefer if you would remain focused on that so we can thrash out our differences, but I will not leave you broader comments unanswered even thought I doubt it is productive use of our time.
In the words of Napoleon "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon" and his nemesis Wellington wrote to to one would-be historian of Waterloo, John Croker: "The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance".
Most of history is to do collating and interpretation of facts. What Napoleon called an agreed version can also be called a paradigm. Most of the time, as in other disciplines, most of the facts and the interpretation of those facts are agreed upon it is only the detail to flesh out the current paradigm (consensus view) which is being worked upon. Occasionally, for a variety of reasons which are discussed on the historical revisionism page, as it is in many other academic disciplines, the accepted order is overthrown by a new consensus which becomes the new paradigm. What we are talking about on this page are people who work to overthrown or undermine the agreed consensus by using duplicitous methods, by for example fabrication false historical "Facts" etc.
An example of a false "fact" entering history which came to light recently was the fabrication of Nelson's liking for a cat called Tiddles [4]. Now this was largely a harmless hoax which got out of control, but it is easy to see how people like Irving have managed to get numbers like 135,000 into the historical record for what appears to be political historical revisionism. Irving and his ilk like the term "historical revisionism" precicely because it has another respectable meaning.
Do you really think that thinks like the Battle of Waterloo are only subject to facts? How do explain that the historical interpretation of the battle often differs depending on the nationality of the historian? How do you explain the change over time on the explanations as to the causes of the English Civil War? After all the "facts" of the conflict have not been radically in dispute since the war ended.
As for your contention that the meaning of histocical revisionism has only one meaning in Europe, I suggest that you do a google search on ["historical revisionism" site:ac.uk] you will find that both meanings are used on UK academic sites. look at this one "It is a revisionism which is based on an enormously wide range of reading on Professor Hoppen’s part, as well as an even-tempered and judicious handling of the scholarship of so many fellow historians." Last time I checked the UK was in Europe both politically and geographically.
I would like to get back to the specific issues we were debating and point out to you that it is not up to you to ask me not to remove things for which there is no consensus it is for you to build a consensus before putting them back in. Please see the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability
  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  • Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
--PBS 01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with verifiability. I perfectly understanding what you're saying about history. I do agree that historical studies are not like mathematics, and i know the difference between facts & interpretations. All historians do. However, this does not change anything to the definition of revisionism as denial of facts. I don't really care about this other supposed definition (both you and Stalblach have provided me quotes using it in a neutral sense, but i've also heard US people, on this page, disagreeing with you - anyway, for the time being, i'm not editing on the other page about revisionist). Now, concerning this page, and if you please, we may remain to specific topics, you deleted various times the reference to Japanase war crimes. If you do it another time, you are engaging yourself in an act of revisionism (this is no threat, it is simply a moral condemnation :). Same goes for the Rwandan genocide. I have no proofs to give about the existence of Japanese war crimes or about the Rwandan genocide. Rather, if you want to discuss them, you should bring sources. IT's the other way around. Another rv and i'm asking a request for arbitration (this is no threat either, but since this is going in a stupid edit-war, we'll have to stop it one way or another.) Lapaz 13:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

I removed the following:

"It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by reputable historians and a work that, although popular, is not. For example it was not until Irving lost his British libel suit against Lipstadt and that he "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence", that the general public realised that his books were anything but works which were broadly in the canon of acceptable academic histories."

"Irving lost his British libel suit against Lipstadt" needs to be explained or linked (if these people have articles).
It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by reputable historians and a work that, although popular, is not. (With a bit of my rewording)

This sentence needs to go, as it is competely irrelevant and really says nothing. Who writes something is never a criteria per se for dismissing a work as faulty in any way. And in that light, the remainder of this paragraph probably needs to go as well unless its relevance can be made more clear and its difference from simple Historical revisionism demonstrated. Keep in mind that there should be few examples here that carry over from that article, as illustrating the differences between these two will likely prove essential in keeping this article alive.

On top of all this, there's no reference. --DanielCD 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the section on Catholic censorship as irrelevant to this topic per se. I added a cleanup tag, as this article is atrocious and needs attention. It very likely needs to be merged with Historical revisionism, as I suspect many of the examples here are going to prove as irrelevant as the Catholic piece I removed.

And please, don't put this stuff back in the article. I assure you it won't stick. --DanielCD 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of textbooks in Japan has been a problematic one ever since Japan formally established its modern education system in 1890, and though the players and the details have changed with the passage of time, the fundamental basis of its controversy -- whether or not the Japanese government's authorization of a particular history textbook represents its official line toward its historical past -- has remained the same. As such it can be argued that this is an inverse of the usual political historical revisionist position because those who wish to replace the long held established view of history in Japan textbooks with alternative information which better reflects the widely accepted international view of history are the historical revisionists.

I'm trying to quelch a chuckle here...but this is ridiculous, not to mention uncited. I know there's an issue here, but I'm not sure this is the way to address it, and this wording is...Hmmm. Please don't put this back until it's cited, phrased in an intelligible manner, and has its relevance made clear. --DanielCD 21:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do agree with you. Revisionism is not about contesting a paradigm as some would have it, it is about pretending specific war crimes & genocides didn't happen. Has somebody here bother to read the good old George Orwell here, which someone had the good idea of putting as example? Lapaz

I'm putting this article up for peer-review, and quite possibly deletion. Someone seriously needs to blow some sunshine down the black hole this article has been hiding in.

Put it in deletion, brillant idea! Do you actually revindicate erasing criticisms of revisionism? I'm sure the Wikipedia community is a bit more democratic. I hope I misunderstood you. Lapaz

"Among their rhetorical techniques" is mostly a rehash of Logical fallacy material. Perhaps a link to Category:Logical fallacies in the 'see also' section might help. --DanielCD 21:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Official state history always has a hard time accepting the existence of the past crimes and errors.

Probably. But lots of people, organizations and other entities have problems with the past. Why is the political aspect the focus here? Shouldn't this be Historical revisionism (fraudulant) or (ideaological) or something more general of that nature? --DanielCD 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel for your help at editing. However, take a bit more care on a sensitive subject as this one. First all, there was a source for the British suit against Lipstadt, which you simply ignored. Second, you've put some tags in quite ridiculous places. At least it pushed me to look quickly for sources for the places where it was legitimate. Why pushed me to go quick? Because if you'd look at this talk page, it's been over a week than PBS, and even more, are reversing edits because of disagreements. Last, I thank you very much for your comments concerning your definition of historical revisionism and your strange proposition of creating a H.R. (fraudulant) or (ideological). First of all, this would mean exactly the same as H.R. (political). Second, it is my understanding that because of an on-going debate, HR pages have been divided into two, one "neutral" "legitimate" HR page and another "political" (call it "fraudulent" if you wish...) HR. However, if you had taken the time of reading this talk page, you would have seen that many people contest this division, for opposite reasons (there are those who want to defend "political"HR as legitimate, while they are others who consider that there is no "neutral" HR, and that HR is an appelation reserved to what others call "political" HR.) As you see the matter is not simple. However, I would be very pleased if instead of continuing this debate which is going nowhere as for the time being there haven't been much people here, so if we could simply concentrate on the historical facts, that they are war crimes and genocides, and that those war crimes & genocides are often target of revisionism. I've add a source to all of the examples given. I hope not to see another edit war starting soon... Lapaz

"Historical revisionism" is a legitimate term, used by legitimate professional historians, that has been co-opted by historical deniers for political purposes. They are entirely separate concepts. One is used by professional historians, the other is used by historican deniers. Merging these articles would in effect be giving legitimacy to the historical deniers, which is exactly what they set out to achieve by co-opting the term. This has allready been talked to death on the talk pages, and the articles themselves do a good job of explaining it with real-world citations. --Stbalbach 01:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen/women: Please feel free to revert any of my edits you disagree with, and take my edits and comments as simply suggestions. I am not here to "bust in and set things right", and certainly do not intend to make more heavy edits that will upset people. Perhaps you will find a little bit of a different-than-usual viewpoint will be of help. Sorry for any mistakes. Forgive any sharp language, but I use it to make a point. I feel all the points I made were valid, but I don't mind if you disagree. I do want this to get a peer review though, and I believe it can only strengthen the article. Things will get challenged, but that's what Wikipedia's about; if it is valid, it will withstand such challenge. Accept my comments here not as a threat of "invasion", but as merely calling attention to issues I strongly believe need to be addressed. And please accept my goodwill; we are all here with the same goal: to improve this article. Thanks. --DanielCD 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
How about "Politically-motivated Historical revisionism" as a title? A little long, but...I like it. But that's me. And there are certainly longer article titles out there.
I hope the current copyediting I am doing will prove harmless. I removed the link from the opening line, and linked Hist. revisionism a little farther down, as it is not policy to link the opening text in such a fashion. But, again, if you disagree put it back (it is ugly like that, but, hey, you are here more than me). --DanielCD 03:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
President Jacques Chirac passed a decree charging the president of the Assembly, Jean-Louis Debré (UMP), with modifying the controversial law. Chirac ordered Prime minister Dominique de Villepin to seize the Constitutional Council, which would permit the abrogation of the controversial law.
with modifying the controversial law -- The reader asks: in what way did he modify this law? What authority has he? Was his modification an illegal act?
Also: Would not "repeal" be a better word than "abrogation"? This is more reader-friendly. Also follow the abrogation link and see what you find. Is this where you want the reader to go? It may add confusion.
Hopefully these questions will help you see from the perspective of someone who knows not much about this, and perhaps lead to some modifications that strengthen the article. --DanielCD 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The law also recognized the "hardships and sacrifices endured by the repatriated" (implicitly refering to the pied-noirs) as well as by the harkis.
If this is relevant, it needs to be made plain. Simply "recognizing" hardships is not revisionism. Is this law compelling this recognition? Compelling books/works to see them only in this light and not criticism them? Is criticism of the "repatriated" being forbidden here? Some more clarity added to this would likely be a desired improvment. Again: take these queestions not as a challenge, but me helping you to see how I see, and hopefully how any given reader would see as well.
I am beginning to see I was indeed wrong in some of my original assumptions about the legitimacy of the concept. I am suitable humbled. But still: a brisk peer review will open the door and let in a little fresh air. Then again, no one may be interested, and the review period will expire with no change. We'll see. --DanielCD 04:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome in any edits (I actually thank you for copy-editing the French part. The funny things about your comments yesterday was that it was like pointing toward one author, when the article of course was wrote by several authors, who disagree on many things, as you can see above. As an example of this, I do agree with you that the Catholic entry was not really relevant to this). Concerning precise points, I've remoded the passage about the pied-noirs and the harkis, as your comments make me see that without further explanations, it leads to misunderstanding (as this part of the law is not contested as revisionism, only the article stating that textbooks and history teachers must "acknowledge the globally positive value of colonialism", which most (French?) history teachers considers as revisionism). Now, about the "legitimacy of the concept", it appears that some, as Stalblach, consider there is a valid historic revisionism - and until now, Stalblach's edits have seem to me as more or less objective, in any cases nothing to do with revisionist edits. Others, such as me, considers the concept of historical revisionism to be only about so-called "political" HR (beside, I can't understand how one can claim that history may be neutral and non-political; history by itself is political, so revision of it is also political.. but that's a debate for the historical revisionism page). The last category of people who would deny the legitimacy of the concept would be (political) revisionists themselves. Lapaz 18:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I try to be diplomatic when I use sharp language. I aim at no one, as there is no real intention of attacking any editor. If you are unable to tell who I am writing to, then I have been successful, because, in truth, I am criticising to no one in particular. My concern is with the material, and I try to aim my attack there as to be most productive (and to keep egos as free of bruising as possible).
I agree that I still lack much understanding about this, and this is why I'm make no further major edits. I will, however, continue to help improving the grammar and wording, and make my largest contributions by moving them here, as I have done above, and illustrating what I feel is an issue. Then we can combine this with you, Lapaz, (who knows much more than I on this issue) and the others' expertise, and we can make progress in making this piece shine. --DanielCD 18:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Lapaz: Per your above statement, "I hope I misunderstood you." Please be assured you have indeed. I was mistaken about the deletion, and hope we can overlook that now, as my appreciation of thie importance of this material is now much greater. I certainly don't want to see anything "whitewashed", and would have reached these conclusions sooner or later. So yes, you misunderstood, and so did I. But, at least speaking for myself, we both are now a little more enlightened because of it. --DanielCD 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry all (and particularly Lapaz ) I got confused and accidentally co-edited an old version and saved it as the most recent :-( see:[5].
I will now Co-edit the latest version. :-)
--PBS 23:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacres & obvious condemnation of revisionism which Wikipedia seems to need

You want a link about revisionism concerning the Srebrenica massacre? You amaze me more & more... Here you go [6], and please do not include it in the article as I would certainly consider it as a spam-attempt. Good lord, i wasn't wrong in thinking that Wikipedia definitely needed some warning concerning revisionism attempts, as it seems that we don't all share the same obvious ethical condemnation of revisionist attempts, which for some reason some people believe to be limited to Holocaust denial. Somebody included George Orwell's 1984; i believe we may have to add Brave New World to the list... Shearer, do you really make a point in deciding which revisionist denials of genocides should be made, or is is truely a strange-thought concern of "the encyclopedia contents of Wikipedia" (which, according to you, should not list genocides committed in the past 15 years - of course, they are a bit more of a moral concern to us than the Holocaust, committed by evil Nazis - nor massacres of Muslims?) Beside, you did add no reason validing your REPEATED DELETIONS. Is it because it is Sunday morning, or I am getting tired of this game? Lapaz 13:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz you added to the article "Srebrenica Genocide denial, also called Srebrenica Genocide revisionism" Source? As people have been found guilty of this crime in a international tribunial. Please provide a credible source which says that there is a serious attempt at "Srebrenica Genocide denial" and who is attempting such a thing. --PBS

Lead section

Regarding this opening paragraph

In this sense, revisionists seeks to rewrite history by downgrading or simply ignoring essential facts, as in for example Holocaust denial. Germany and Austria have passed a law which makes denial of the Holocaust an offence, as did France with the 1990 Loi Gayssot, which may punish Holocaust denial of prison sentence, and Belgium with the 1995 Negationism Act. Belgian MPs are contemplating the extension of the Negationist Act to other revisionist attempts [1].

The highlited part is a level of detail in the lead paragraph that is simply out of line. The lead paragraph is a summary of the article, with specific details in the body of the article. Read the MoS. This article is not specifically about the holocaust denial, it is just one example of historical revisionism. Youve taken this one issue that you are personally passionate about and gone off the deep end promoting it. Please back off and work as part of a community instead of reverting every change that people make to this article. --Stbalbach 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I simply reverted changes made by one other user, PBS. Your opinions about myself may be interesting, but are irrelevant concerning this section. It is certainly not a specific detail, and is not out of line. Lapaz 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It is too specific for the lead section. Reverted. Stbalbach 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC) --02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

EU and the Council of Europe

I have removed this paragraph:

Revisionism is condemned in seven European countries, and the European Commission projected the expansion of these laws to all European countries in its 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. Article 6, titled "Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity" states that each party (of the European Union) "shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right: distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party."
  1. Because the number of countries is not sourced. (should be with [7]
  2. The Council of Europe which is mentioned in the given source is not an EU institution so the whole of the rest of the paragraph is just wrong.
  3. Even if it is altered to read Council of Europe as clasue 2 of Article 6 can be used to qualify clause 1 not to quote it is misleading at best. --PBS 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Council of Europe not an EU institution? but European countries do have a European Court of Human Rights, whatever power it may have... bickering over law when you're talking about denial of war crimes. Why? Lapaz 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not a news group. It is not "bickering" to point out that the Council of Europe is not part of the EU nor for that matter is the European Court of Human Rights. Further you have not addressed the question of the question of Claus 2 of article 6, which BTW is the type of thing that Irving has been accused of doing, namely finding a source and then selectively quoting only a part of the source to make his point. You also need to address when did this treaty come into force and which European countries have implemented laws to integrate the treaty into domestic law. --PBS 08:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW please note the addition of a reference for "seven European countries[12]". and "Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Switzerland..." in alphabetic order and the addition of a reference for Lithuania. --PBS 10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See COE legal affairs, Treaty office The Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems Opening of the treaty 28/1/2003, Entry into force 1/3/2006. The List of countries which have signed and ratified it. An Explanatory Report. Also US DOJ: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME (Update as of November 10, 2003):Information on Other Issues --PBS 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

crypto-revisionism

Unless there is a verifiable [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source] which links crypto-revisionism to historical revisionism it should be removd from this article as Wikipedia does not create neologisms.

The article on Krypto-revisionism that they made it up as a pun on Crypto-revisionism but they give no source for that and they do not say that it is the same as negationism or historical revisionism as used on this page. But as the talk page Talk:Krypto-revisionism to that article says:

What is "crypto-revisionism"? I can't find anything about it on Google. -AaronW 20:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have done my own search using Google [crypto-revisionism -derogatory-term] (DT to remove wikipeida mirrors) the only pages returned were:

Both contain the same text and use the term. But it seems to be a Communist term from a commumist perspective:

The identification of Stalin's essay as a seminal attack on crypto-revisionism, led Bland to identify the clique around Vosnosensky and Khruschev who had tried to establish capitalism in the USSR during Stalin's lifetime.

I do not think that this is an authoritative source to base the use of the term in a general purpose Encyclopaedia unless it is very heavily qualified and only used in communist circles --PBS 11:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I introduced the term here because I have redirected the cryptorevisionism article here. If you don't agree with the term, ask for its deletion over there. Revisionism is the only correct term in my European view. Please stop deleting Rwandan genocide, former Yugoslavia (Srebrenica massacres - I have provided you with a revisionist link so please maintain good faith) and official definition from the Council of Europe - I'm sure you don't like it, however it's the only one. Lapaz 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz I object to you wrapping yourself in the European Flag as if this there is a unique European "correct" view which you represent and that the the view in the rest of the word is different from "[your correct] European view". In addition further up this page I did a Google search of site:ac.uk, to show you that in the UK historical revisionism has more than one meaning, or in "[your] European view" is the UK not part of Europe?

Please address you justifications for keeping the Rwandan genocide as an example to the section on this talk page to the Rwandan section so that we can drill down on our differences. But as a general point this article is about political historical revisionism so putting genocide articles as an indented main article in the first line of the section is not correct, as those articles have little or nothing additional to say about Historical Revisionism which is not in this article.

Lapaz you introduced the text about crypto-revisionism into this page. I do not need to go to another page to ask for a source. It is on this page I direct you to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy page. --PBS 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

I introduced the term here because I have redirected the cryptorevisionism article here. If you don't agree with the term, ask for its deletion over there. Revisionism is the only correct term in my European view. Please stop deleting Rwandan genocide, former Yugoslavia (Srebrenica massacres - I have provided you with a revisionist link so please maintain good faith) and official definition from the Council of Europe - I'm sure you don't like it, however it's the only one. Lapaz 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the Yugoslavia section as there is not one reliable source with it. Please see the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy page: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." it also says:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

--PBS 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it strangely perverse of you requiring to proove that the Srebrenica massacres have been subjected to revisionism. This either shows your ignorance about what happened in Yugoslavia or your bad faith. However, I have provided you with a ref, because you refuse to assume my good faith. And I point out, again, how ironic and, more dangerously, perverse to require me to put a reference about an example of revisionism, which is, of course, simultaneously a spam-link - which you prohibit me from deleting because you consider it as a reference. A dirty reference, yes. Lapaz 23:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Lapaz, asking for a verification is within Philip's right as a Wikipedian, without being told he is "perverse"?! Verifiable sources improve the quality and integrity of the article. -- Stbalbach 03:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If this example is to be kept then there needs to be reliable sources given like articles in respectable newspapers, books or research papers which state that the genocide is subject to historical revisionism, otherwise the example should be deleted. To date not one reliable source has been given. If none are forthcoming then the example should be deleted. As to the one that has been given, it is not from a reliable source and it fails the Mandy Rice-Davies test "He would say that wouldn't he".

As Lapaz is French a little more on MRD under an adversarial judicial system, the two sides present the best they can to try to persuade the jury that their side of the argument is right. If one side is a criminal then one would not be surprised if they do not tell "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth". In this case as Milosevic is on trial in the Hague one would expect his side to present his case in the best possible light, both for the formal judgment and the informal one of international public opinion, we will have to wait and see if he is a war criminal. But evidence presented in court in defense of war crimes charges is not a clear case of historical revisionism. --PBS 18:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't reference 24, after the other Emperor's new clothes ref given on this talk page, enough? It is an example of a revisionist governmental report: I gather this is "reliable"? Lapaz 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Here is one link that talks about revisionism and denial. I have personally attended at least 3 of these conferences that at least touched and discussed issues of revisionism in Yugoslavia specifically relating to Srebrenica massacre. The claim that no revisionism on this subject is taking place is quite missguided.--Dado 00:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A much better source. But the source reads to me that the citizens of the country in who's name the massacres took place, are coming to terms with the crimes committed in their name. As Alex Boraine said back in 2002 "Denial is still very, very uppermost in Serbia. They find it extraordinarily difficult to come to terms with the fact that they have caused such hardship and havoc and worse"[8]. But the trials and things like the video footage of the six bound men who were murdered which was shown around the world including in Serbia late last year. So that now "Five men are currently being tried in Serbia" for this crime according to this source. As the source which user:Dado presented makes clear the Hague trial is part of this process of educating the Serb population. This source confirms that this process is proceeding when "Serbian officials led by President Tadic paid respects for the first time [in Srebrenica]." Given that Hague tribunal is ongoing [9], I think that those who argue against the massacres are denying that the events took place, but that it is too early to call those denials "historical revisionism" and as such it is not a good example to include in this article. --PBS 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your personal POV. You have no more legitimacy than anybody else in selecting which are "good examples" and "bad examples". This, as you are well aware, must be discussed. This said, I think Stalblach and you have a conception of this article as it should only include one or two examples as to explain, illustrate, what revisionism is. In my POV, you are there mistaken. Actually, the article should include all examples of revisionism. Why? Because the only way to treat such a subject is not to speak in the empty sky of idealist theory, but of adressing historical and political issues. And the second reason is that revisionism, in the sense taken here, is not just any revision of history: it is "denial" or downgrading of genocides or crimes against humanity. Since the list of genocides & crimes against humanity is limited, the examples are also limited to them. Since most if not all genocides are discussed for evident political reasons, most if not all will be included here. PBS, I've seen your interest in law, and that's good - but be careful not to judge everything with the criteria of law. Quite ironically, I've been forced here to insist that revisionism is illegal in order that we understand well what we're talking about. However, law is not everything; and in this specific case, law only reflects politics. Lapaz 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

You guys seem to be doing a lot of circles here. I was hoping I could assist with my earlier comments, but I apparently mistook the purpose of Wikipedia's "peer review" program. I'd just like to offer the observation that two editors at one article that seem to be in constant conflict might benefit from asking some third party opinions. Unfortunately this article doesn't get a lot of traffic; it's kind of a backwater (though certainly a valid issue). You may be getting into a "rut" so-to-speak, and hence missing some of the bigger picture.

If there is real, fundamental disagreement, ask for a "request for comment". That may bring in some fresh viewpoints that help see things anew.

I am merely offering this as an outside perspective, and meaning it as gentle constructive criticism. I just hate to see you two work so hard and not make progress (though maybe you are making progress, I don't know...). May be of use or may not, but I hope it helps. --DanielCD 16:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am archiving some material; forgive me if I inadvertantly remove anything that's still in process. Just replace it if I do. I also removed the article from the peer-review process, as that doesn't appear to be getting anywhere. --DanielCD 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Actually I think a request for comment is more than necessary, unfortunately I do not know how it works. I'll just point out, here, quickly, that, for the time being - we have discussed & did agree on some stuff - user:PBS insists on:
  • taking out the Rwandan genocide, claiming it's not relevant. I don't think he really has the legitimity to judge this kind of things, especially since he seems to confuse an "internal French squabble" with a genocide.
We need to establish what Examples of revisionism are included, what the criteria is, since the possibilities are endless and this article is not meant to document every one. IMO the examples should be illustrative of the general points made at the beginning of the article, it should be well established with lots of source material and historical tradition, it should not be on-going and controversial. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "we" really have the possibility to choose which or which revisionism case should be included. I mean, genocides & crimes vs humanity are often enought contested, which is the reason this expression of revisionism has been created over the years. I agree with your advice against having "on-going and controversial" debates about if this or this is an effective case of revisionism. Although I'm sure nobody will deny that the Srebrenica massacre or the Rwandan genocide have been subject to denial; the same can't be said, for example, about Catalan negationism, which I agree in considering more controversial. Lapaz 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Stbalbach. --PBS 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • taking out former Yugoslavia (namely the Srebrenica massacres). While the proof, in such matters, is to be given by the one denying the fact (read the "techniques of revisionism" section) it is highly ironical & perverse to force me to bring a proof - and thus a fascist spam-link, to call things by their name - of this kind of revisionism. I did however in the talk page; it was not sufficient, so I have to edit this spam-link as a "reference".
If it's that hard to verify, perhaps it's not a good example for an encyclopedia article. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not hard to verify, actually you have several examples in the Srebrenica massacre entry. I just don't think Wikipedia's role is providing a source of revisionist links; that would be like making an entry on neo-nazism and including all neo-nazis sites on the planet. Actually, this is one of the argument against legislation governing hate speech: you speak about it, even if it's to silence it. Lapaz 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You do not have to give links to neo-nazis sites. To collate such information would be a breach of WP:NOR what you do need to do is provide links (or sources) to newspapaper articles, Books or research papers which state that the genocide is subject to historical revisionism, otherwise the example should be deleted. --PBS 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that newspaper, books or scholarly articles is preferable to direct source propaganda, which is Original Research to make judgment about. -- Stbalbach 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • refusing to make an introduction of more than one sentence, namely: refusing to state that the Council of Europe defines revisionism as denial or downgrading of genocides or crimes against humanity, as given by the source (this definition is the only one concerning this type of revisionism, as opposed to the "neutral revisionism") and stating in which countries it is forbidden.
I've added a single-sentence reference to revisionism legislation in Europe to the lead section. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I really think that the intro should clearly state the Council of Europe's definition as denial or downgrading of genocides & crimes against humanity; this is the only definition I can think of, and it's clear enough to see to what this apply. All other cases of revisionism would hereafter fall in the "neutral" revisionism entry, as they are not discussions of guiltiness or responsibility in crimes but simple historian job. Lapaz 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There are other types of political historical revisionism covered by legislation (eg the French colonial example you introduced to the page) so to be specific in the introduction is misleading. --PBS 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus in the summary its better to "dumb down" whats being said so it can be understood by anyone without assuming any prior knowledge of details. This is in the MoS. Most people will have no idea what the Council of Europe is, nor should they - just say its illegal in some countries - very clear and easy to understand. Details are in the article body. -- Stbalbach 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it for the time being. Repeated deletions & reverts on such a subject leads one to lose any presumption of good faith or anything. Lapaz 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is improving in quality. There are a few outstanding issues. Personally I think the European laws about revisionism should have its own article, and expand in size, including a historical background; and this article link to it with a summary. Theres a lot more that could be said on that topic that would easily justify its own article. One of the main complaints here is that this one issue is dominating the article. Lapaz I know this is important to you and a lot of people, but this is the English language wikipedia and the vast majority (all?) English language countries have not outlawed revisionism, its just not "mainstream" for the majority of readers. We report on how the world is, not tell how it should be. -- Stbalbach 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

For some time now the #Lead section of this piece has had in bold "Political historical revisionism". Today the introduction has been re-arranged so that the words begin at the start of the article. This I think is a mistake because it introduces the idea that the phrase Political historical revisionism is in common usage when AFAICT it is merely a phrase used here to differentiate the it from its traditional meaning of historical revisionism and neologisms should be avoided. So I moved the page to Historical revisionism (negationism) and I making some changes to the introduction to avoid this. --PBS 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good move, I was the one who originally called it "historical revisionism (political)" for lack of a better description, to disambiguate it from the scholarly field - now we have the word negationism which is actually used by people in the real world. -- Stbalbach 16:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What About the American Civil War?

The American Civil War has been the subject of very successful historical revisionism. The immmediate cause of the war was Southern secession based on a belief that the Republican government of Abraham Lincoln, who took office in 1861, would unsettle the political compromise for admitting newly formed Western states, which had required one slave state to be admitted to the Union for every free state. The basis of the concern was that the institution of slavery would not survive such restriction and that upsetting the compromise would lead to slavery's eventually being outlawed by a future Congress composed of representatives for a majority-free America.

Following the Civil War, however, and continuing to this day, school children in the states of the former Confederacy are taught that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery but was instead about "states' rights." At the time, however, "states' rights" was an issue only to the extent the debate was about states' rights to legalize slavery.

It is also an interesting, but not much discussed and almost taboo, circumstance that the dedication of "ideological conservatives" to "limited government" has a good deal of its intellectual foundation in post-Civil War "states' rights" revisionism. This ideology of limited government was part of the rhetoric of opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The success of this ideology in modern American political debate should be taken as an indication that historical revisionism is not always unsuccessful and not always limited to fringe or marginalized groups.

-- Bob

I'm not sure that example is revisionism so much as its is a conflict of historical analysis. Both sides are right on a certain level. It all depends what you want to emphasis, and your approach to teaching history. I don't think either side would deny the other is accurate, rather they might disagree on which is more important to emphasize. -- Stbalbach 16:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think this comment is a typical illustration of the necessity to include the Council of Europe's definition of revisionism as concerning genocides or crimes against humanity. This official and widely accepted definition - I never had anything else in mind when I started contributing to this article - is the only real way to mark a distinction between what you call "historical revisionism" (and that I call plain history work) and "revisionism as negationism". This is, for example, why the Rwandan genocide must be included: because, contrary to the US Civil War, it is a case of denying of crimes vs humanity, not of a debate on the understand of the historical process. I think this official definition, given in the intro, would just set up this debate, giving a precise definition of "negationism". Lapaz 16:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting distinction. It's not clear to me that revisionist history of the American Civil War falls clearly outside of this definition (as opposed to within its penumbra).
May I suggest that the articles on various forms of revisionism should be merged into a single entry? One danger of defining the topic so narrowly is that limitation of the topic to attempts to revise the histories of certain notorious and well-documented modern events creates the impression that revisionism is necessarily obvious and doomed to fail. As a practical matter, however, the foregoing comments to my post appear implicitly to accept the legitimacy of revisionist history of the American Civil War, even though that revisionism is a component of a larger revisionism of what may be said to amount to a crime against humanity (i.e., slavery and segregation and the violence that attended them). Who can say how the modern events discussed in this article will be perceived 120 years from now?
-- Bob

Well I hope that someone will update this page a few more times between now and 120 years in the future, so the page being out of date in the year 2126 should not concern us in the immediate future! I think having two pages is a good idea providing both keep a prominent link in the introduction so that both meanings can be found easily. If we role them into one we will tend to give succor to the likes of Irving. As to you comments on "doomed to fail" what about the examples on the Historical revisionism page, for example the on going revisions of the English Civil War? --PBS 21:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_negationism/Archive_2&oldid=737379773"