Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Is This About NÉGATIONNISME or a confusing way of explaining HISTORICAL REVISIONISM?

I was looking for information on the French term NÉGATIONNISME, not historical revisionism per se, and while it is true that certain scholars use the terms interchangeably, the term NÉGATIONNISME is actually used only once and the rest of this article appears to be poorly worded, rather confusing examples of historical revisionism, all of which is found elsewhere in Wiki as well. Yes, there is talk in the section FRENCH LAW RECOGNISING COLONIALISM'S "POSITIVE VALUE" but as an article explaining anything about NÉGATIONNISME other than this quote: "The word is derived from the French term négationnisme, which means denial, which is illegal in France and several other countries" it fails. Either change the title of this article so we can craft a page that really is about NÉGATIONNISME so it might be of some scholarly use to someone or place these examples back in the categories they come from since they are simply repeating what has been written elsewhere.Himeyuri (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What is "Negationism"?

After reading this article, I still had to wonder what on earth "negationism" is and where on earth the term came from. Apparently, "negationism" is what we used to call "bias." An biased history is a more favorable or unfavorable slant to the portrayal of history, usually achieved by the omission or manipulation of data. However, "negationism" is supposed to limit itself to "historical crimes." Nevertheless, an examination of the authorities cited in the article only generates confusion.

One of the two sources for the use of the term (all the others seem to speak only of revisionism) states as follows: "Given the ignorance with which it is treated, the slave trade comprises one of the most radical forms of historical negationism." So ignorance is "negationism"? I thought it was the conscious mischaracterization of history for political effect (or something like that, who knows)? Instead, UNESCO tells us that ignorance of the slave trade is "negationism." That is hardly reconcilable with the muddled text of the article.

The other source mentioning "negationism", states it is a synonym for "Holocaust denial," and states it deals, essentially, with "Nazi genocide of the Jews." The article text claims otherwise, extending it to "historical crimes" in general--although historical events that are not "historical crimes" are excluded, this also without citation to support same. So, by the lights of this article, if you minimize the the Great Depression you are exhibiting a bias, but minimize the terrorism of Garibaldi and you are in "negationism" territory (I guess--who knows).

This article is just a confused bundle of notions about bad historical revisionism. It should be deleted and its material added to the historical revisionism article under a subheading about the frequent overlap of historical revisionism and biased historical (pseudo)scholarship. It seems the manufacturers of this article are guilty of the same kind of bogus scholarship which they seek to complain of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.118.143 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Lenin speaking

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)

True. Giving two almost identical images and saying one is a manipulated version of the other is clearly manipulation in itself. I removed the example. Mlewan (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the images somehow reappeared. If it is true that the second one really is a manipulation of something, I can see the purpose of it. However, I'm not sure I see the purpose of having an image it is not a manipulation of. Mlewan (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mlewan is correct. They are different photographs. There is no justification for them being here. I am removing them. Channelwatcher (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I am putting them back. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For what reason? You do agree that they are not the same photo, don't you? In which case, what point is being made? I don't understand. Channelwatcher (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The photographs are actually no longer different. They come from different sources, so the resolution is different, but the base is the same. When I deleted them last year, they were completely different: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29&oldid=269033156 Mlewan (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The one I replace was clearly doctored, otherwise the Soviets would not have needed to doctor the one that is currently on display. If you look on Commons:Category:Lenin speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square in Moscow on 5 May 1920, there are now several different photos all taken within seconds of each other. -- PBS (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you ever bother to read the image description page of the "censored" photo, itself a copy of the text on Flikr. May I quote for you.

“ In this case the retouching was done by Spaarnestad Photo ” — Waar is Trotski? / Where is Trotski?

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I admit that I did not read the image description for the photo that was added by PBS. The new image clearly has no historic value at all, and I deleted the pair again. --Mlewan (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, the "fake" retouch picture should in my opinion be deleted from commons, as the title is misleading. However, for technical reasons, my browser does not allow me to initiate a deletion request. If someone else can do it, it would be appreciated. --Mlewan (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete from Commons. This is a very good learning experience for all of us. It shows how easy it would have been for Soviet editors to adapt photos, It also shows how easy it is for Western propagandist to cook up accusations and "proof".

The image description should be clarified though. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Negationism in India

See Talk:Historical_revisionism (negationism)/Archive 4#Deletions

What ever the rights or wrongs of the book (Koenraad Elst Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam (1992). ISBN 81-85990-01-8 ) I think it is a useful example of the use of the word negationism. --PBS (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Colonial and Imperial revisionism

I think that this section should be moved into Historical revisionism if it belongs in either of the two articles. --PBS (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not clear who is a revisionist as I wrote in Talk:British Raj

Given that the prevailing view in Western Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) before World War II on colonialism can be summed up in the phrase the White man's burden -- at which period since would you argue that "'empire' was a dark chapter of British and European history" was the dominant international paradigm to describe the history of all European colonialism and the British Raj in particular?[1]

Given US actions in the Pacific, (Alaska, Philippians, Hawaii and smaller islands) I think shows that what ever the official US name for their behaviour they were engaged in colonialism. Their wriggling over naming their behaviour reminds me of the reaction of Wilfried Böse during the Entebbe hostage crises "When a Jewish hostage who had survived a concentration camp showed Bose his inmate registration number tattooed on his arm, Bose was indignant. I'm no Nazi! ...I am an idealist."[2] Or more recently when a French spokesman angered Australian public opinion by suggesting that Mururoa Atoll was part of France.[3] However that is beside the point. From the postings above I do not think it is useful to call historians revisionist unless that is a label that they use to describe themselves because of the negative connotations it carries in British English and as far as I can tell we are describing a case of Russian dolls when using the term.[4]

--PBS (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Revisionism", or rather, historical revision, is based on historical evidence and primary reasearch work and is a genuine part of academic and scholarly work in history. Negationism is reinterpretation in absence of or ingnoring evidence, and supporting that interpretation with views, eg, Counterfactual history to a large extent. Who is a revisionist (not just in the British Raj, but any other colonial enterprise) is addressed at length in the O'Day and the Gkotzaridis references. I have, in this, almost faithfully reproduced other authors' words and views, and have appropriately referenced these, including the views that the negationism shifts the balance of benefit from the colonial country to the colony. This is not to do with "evil" or "dark chapters" per se, but to do with (as the authors point out) reinterpretation of the entire period. The view prevailing in Western Europe before WWII is not what is being considered here. Rather, it is the interpretations and views of modern authors (which is adjudged by others as biased, deliberately incorrect, misleading and unsupported by evidence) that is the issue. I think it will be wrong to "label" anybody as revisionist and would border on accusation in a wikipedia article. What I wrote was that some authors have been "accused" by others of engaging in revisionism, which is what the references back up. I dont know if US is/was/will be a colonial power, so I am not willing to get into this discussion. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are laying this out as if there is one widely accepted position on colonialism that the authors you mention are trying to revise, yet the online sources you are providing are much more of a political stance (similar to the position that they accuse the other side as holding), that is not a NPOV.

What do you base your assumption that this section should be in this article and not in the article Historical revisionism? --PBS (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The references to outlines and desciptions of what colonial negationism is are a book and a review in a historical journal (The American Historical review, published by the American historical association). Gkotzaridis for example says that the negationist views are based on less well-supported evidence, where such evidence is considered. The political articles and views you describe is described as such, ie, that it is the view of somebody that somebody else holds a negationist view. Moreover, as I have described above, Historical revisionism is a different thing and is a genuine academic discipline. Negationism by definition therefore does not belong in that article. What I am trying to say is that the authors are not the subject of this section. The topic of this section is a body of work that seeks to portray colonialism and colonial history in a more positive light. The names are mentioned, you will note, as authors whose works are held by others ~(and these others are mentioned by name as well) as negtaionist versions of history. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that the historical paradigm over colonialism is the way round that the sources allege and as such the entry has a built in Bias in favour of the sources you cite.

The article that is on line does not state that the Gkotzaridis means "negationism" what is your evidence that he does not mean historical revisionism (academic)? This is a biographic entry on living people and is therefor covered by WP:BOLP and unless you can provide a quote that the two authors mentioned are guilty of "negationism", then this entry should either be removed from Wikipedia or added to historical revisionism article. --PBS (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Alan O'Day summarises in a peer reviewed journal that [www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ahr.113.2.588 Gkotzaridis makes that opinion in the book]. I am not sure how much more sucicntly put it, but misinterpreting or interpretations unsupported by historical evidence does not constitute historical review or revisionism but negationism. Historical review is an outcome of historical research. This is not a biographical entry, nor a nor a Coatrack. It is mentioned that Rudyard Kipling's views are ascribed by some (as does his own Biographical entry) as apologist. In terms of the living people, the article does not say that the authors are negationist, it says their woprks have been interpreteded (and references where the interpretations have been made) by other noted commentators as negationist. Wikipedia is not making any allegations here at all. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 08:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are more uses the term negationist in context

• Donald C. Holsinger. The Journal of African History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1993), pp. 152-154.
• Cultured Force: Makers and Defenders of the French Colonial Empire. By Barnett Singer and John Langdon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004.
• Algeria in France: Transpolitics, Race, and Nation. By Paul A. Silverstein. New Anthropologies of Europe. Edited by Daphne Berdahl, Matti Bunzl, and Michael Herzfeld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004. Pp. xiii+284
• Elizabeth Greenhalgh. Journal of Contemporary History 2005; 40; 601

You have put a statement in italics is that a quote? If so from whom and who is it describing?

This is obviously not a biography page BUT WP:BOLP states (for legal reasons) "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."

By publishing the information on this page we are drawing a conclusion by interpreting what the authors say (that the two historians mentioned are no better than David Irving) unless and the attacking historian specifically says that they are using revisionism with this meaning we should not include it on this page. It is safer by far to include it on the page historical revisionism. Further you have not yet come up with any evidence that the attacking historians represent the current historical paradigm on colonial history. --PBS (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I at all follow what you mean by Paradigm. If I am correct in interpreting what you mean, I believe most of the references I have just mentioned above should tell you what the interpretations are. I dont understand what you mean by comparing authors to David Irving, since that has not been suggested at all. Neither is the article saying they are negationists. What it says is that their work has been interpreted by these commentators as portraying a negationist of colonial history. May I suggest seeking a third party opinion, since we seem to be going in a circle here and I am not sure you at all see what I am trying to say. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions from more editors would be welcome. If you read the section English Civil War#Theories relating to the English Civil War during the last 100 years there have been three views (schools of thought), of why the English Civil Wars were fought, the first view was dominant at the start of the century, the second in the middle of the century and the third towards the end. One can consider these views to have been the accepted paradigm when they were dominant and a paradigm shift occurred as the old dominant view was overthrown by a new view. During the paradigm shift many heated arguments take place, but none of this means that historical revisionism is necessarily negationism. So two points:(1) You have not produced any sources that state what the dominant paradigm over colonialism was/is at any particular time -- I think this is important because for well over 100 years there have been a range of views on colonialism from the extreme of "all bad" to the extreme of "all good", and it is not clear to me that the black and white view that you are painting were ever in the last 100 years the dominant paradigm. (2) it is not clear to me from the on line source you have given that the description is of negationism and not a disagreement between academics. For example are we really saying that the two historians have been using some of the methods described in the section Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists, which is how Richard Evans described David Irving as using. If we are then we ought to have specific quotes claiming such behaviour and not just a vague summary of an accusation. --PBS (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean by paradigm, and by all means I think engaging more editors will be very helpful. Of note the subsection covers similar if not the same grounds as the section on French laws above that subsection. As for paradigm views on colonialism given the fact that the article itself considers french laws and other stuffBut I have given you references, not online articles but peer-reviewed journal articles, of what colonialism negationism ism. I have given you a number of references now, and this seems to be getting pointless. I dont see where I have painted a black and white picture. If you are referring to "one of benefit of colonial power to one of benefit of the colonies", that is from the O'Day 2006 reference. I have added below a list of references, but I am not sure if you're disputing that colonialism had deeply unbeneficial and negative connotations attached to it and is viewed as such, or disputing that a school of thought or a body of work exists that disputes these negative connotations. If it is the former, then I am uncomfortable carrying on this discussion, and is moreover not the point of this article.

• Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism. 1980. Unesco.ISBN:9231016350
• African Perspectives on Colonialism By A. A. BoahenA. 1989. Johns Hopkins University Press.ISBN:0801834562
• Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation. R. R. Grinker and C. B. Steiner.1997. Blackwell Publishing.ISBN:1557866864
• Culture and Politics: A Comparative Approach. J. Lane, S. O. Ersson. 2005. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN:0754645789
• The Haunting Past: Politics, Economics and Race in Caribbean Life. A. O. Thompson. 1997. M.E. Sharpe.ISBN:0765600129
• An Introduction to the Literature of Equatorial Guinea: Between Colonialism and Dictatorship. M. A. Lewis. 2007. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-1713-4

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack

I am afraid the article is blown out of proportions by adding more and more examples of revisionism. If an example is notable, and article must be created, and this article must be wikilinked, possibly with very brief summary. Otherwise a false impression is created that the article is big and good. when in fact it is not. IMO what is needed is a narrow,general discussion of the topic. Laudak (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting bombed

I'm not sure if this falls under the definition, so let me ask if it merits inclusion. RCAF bomber crews have been trying to get an interpretation of Harris as a butcher, & any portrayals or evidence of their bombing civilians, suppressed. Whatsay? Or is that something else? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet History?

"Examples of historical revisionism (negationism) include: Japan's comfort women, Holocaust denial and Soviet history."

The first two examples are fine, but isn't it a bit much to say all of Soviet History is an example of historical revisionism? Can we get some specific examples? Or at least a hyperlink that doesn't go directly to a disambiguation page on the history of the Soviet Union?59.38.32.9 (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the soviet attempts to deny Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and denial of cooperating with Nazi Germany when invading Poland? Soviet Union told many lies so it should not be hard to pick one or two out. And I also think this is a subject worth mentioning in this article. --Kyng (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another good example: Falsifiers of History. --Kyng (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Falsifiers of History isn't a particularly good example of historiography... its popular history. "Popular history in the Soviet Union" lacks the clout of a condemnation of Soviet Historiography, similarly... Fifelfoo (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Irving Books were Popular histories, yet we include them here. It is far more likely that historical revisionism of this type will appear in such books than in peer reviewed journals. --PBS (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The irrelevance of the Commissar Vanishes

While the Commissar Vanishes is an excellent book, photodoctoring, and photoarchival work isn't Soviet Historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think photodoctoring it is relevant to this topic and should be included in this article. --PBS (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's emblematic of Sov practise. And it's EZr to understand than asking readers to imagine cutting articles out of the Soviet Encyclopedia. (Also, I can't source that. ;D) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, Encyclopedia's aren't historiography. Two things irritate me with this. One is the rhetorical action of using a picture unrelated to history as practiced by historians in the Soviet Union, which creates an assumption that all historians in the Soviet Union were universally corrupt. Secondly the mischaracterisation of the historical profession as photographers and encyclopedists. I suggest rewriting to create a clear divide between Soviet Historiography and popular histories of the Soviet Communist Party in the section. If no-one objects, I'll move forward with this. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the encyclopedia that's the issue, it's the censorship. And both are examples of it. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither the encyclopedia blacking (mentioned in Commissar Vanishes), or the reproduction of photographs in Newspapers or Magazines are the production of history by historians. The rhetorical claim that popular history was corrupt; thus, academic history was corrupt is pretty back door. It would be like doing a review of coffee table books of Britons at war, and condemning Oxbridge historians on that basis. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice the page is not "Soviet historiography", nor indeed historiography of any description, but "Historical revisionism"...which is to say, the methods & tendencies to abuse historiography. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Historiography_in_the_USSR_and_its_successor_states. Would you care to revise that statement in light of reading the article? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, since these are meant as examples of revisionism, not examples of historiography. On the Soviet historiography page, you'd be right. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ataturk

The polices, who took a photo with the assassin, they were punished. I, also, can't stand anyone to backbite or speak ill of Ataturk.

Isn't this an example of negationism right here? The very act of saying that a certain national hero is above criticism, regardless of context or concern, means certain aspects of the past will be highlighted or fabricated while others will be ignored. As long as Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code stands then negationism will have official government support in Ankara. Mustafa Kemal is many things to many people but he isn't above criticism ... at least in a democratic country.Himeyuri (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The situation about the polices should be written in the article with sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy Penguin (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nuts

At 08:44, 1 March 2009 PBS reverted a painful and long-overdue cleanup of the lead with the comment "It is imortant to note that negationism is a word little used in English."
Since PBS is evidently unfamiliar with normal editing procedures, and was oblivious to the fact that "not[ing that a word] is little used in English" warrants an addition of content, not a blanket revert, I have accordingly reinstated the cleanup, and added all of four words (how amazing!) that ought to allow PBS to sleep better now. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

On making the most biased, anti-NPOV article I've ever seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Shows more about who really runs this place and is one the many reasons that I've basically given up on Wikipedia except for entertainment value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.190.82.48 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we quite obviously need to replace Wikipedia with something honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The article begins by distinguishing between legitimate revisionism, which is supported by references, statistics and arguments, and denial or negationism which is not and frequently based on an extreme political stance. But the examples, in effect, define as denial any revisionism the current writer doesn't like, regardless of how thoroughly the case is presented. 89.240.53.95 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Which example in the text do you think best exemplifies inclusion that "the current writer doesn't like, regardless of how thoroughly the case is presented." -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed re-titling and cleanup

It strikes me that much of this article is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Several paragraphs appear to have no other function but to demonize certain sections of the scholarly community. Historical revisionism, for example, is lumped in with 'Holocaust denial' (whatever that is), with no serious attempt to summarise the arguments of either camp. There is nowhere the pretense of impartiality, as far as I can see.

I propose re-titling this article to 'Historical Negationism' in order to avoid confusion with the already-existing article 'Historical Revisionism'. Better, of course, would be to delete this article altogether, but failing that...

Much of the language, style and level of discourse is inappropriate to an encyclopedic entry. Extensive copyediting and cutting for concision and disambiguation is required. In short, the writing and organisation as it currently stands is a shambles.

I propose to make a start on this when I have some time, since no one else appears to have applied themselves seriously to the task.

Ideas, dissent, comments?

Forcough (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you review the discussion archives for this article and the Historical Revision article before you attempt a name change. The purpose of this article, IMO, is not to " demonize certain sections of the scholarly community" but to point out examples of those folks outside of the "scholarly community" who masquerade as scholars. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Forcough Which demonize group on this page do you consider scholarly? "Negationism" is not very widely used in the English and we name pages according to the Naming conventions. --PBS (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I came here searching some informatión about "revisionism", and I found this article that talks about "negacionism". I read the previous answer but I cant find it. ¿Why this confusing title and not only "negacionism" or "historical negacionism"?. Its make very dificult to use the wiki article as an argument in a discussion because anyone can search and find this. --Ignium (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Information is spelt with an o instead of an ó in English. Negationism takes a t not a c in English. Sentences which are questions don't begin with an inverted question mark in English. I think you were missing a "not" or another negation in your final phrase. "Historical revisionism" is a legitimate practice engaged in by most, if not all practising historians in good academic standing. Historical revisionism is readdressing past judgements. There is also a practice by non-historians and non-scholars, who deny past events while claiming they're engaging in revising lies about the past. The second practice is also called Historical revisionism. Following wikipedia's naming policies, the first article gets the primary name, the second is disambiguated with the qualifier (negationism), as this is its primary feature: a denial about the past as agreed by the consensus of scholarly debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is here any reference saying that the second practice "Negation" is also called "Historical revisionism"? Because if not, we are creating the ambiguity here, in the wiki. Sorry for my poor english. I can understand it well, but write... --Ignium (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes 2 and 3 address this point. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A Google search on [revisionist David Irving site:uk] returns dozens of articles eg:

• The Times: Holocaust-denial Bishop Richard Williamson takes flight to Britain as expulsion threat looms February 25, 2009. "Richard Williamson, who converted to Roman Catholicism as a young man, has contacted the revisionist historian David Irving, asking how to present his views on the Holocaust without arousing controversy, The Times has learnt." "She found lawyers to defend the Australian Frederick Toben after he was arrested at Heathrow last October at the request of the German authorities for publishing “anti-Semitic and/or revisionist” material on an internet site."
• The Independent: Racist. Anti-Semite. Holocaust denier. How history will judge David Irving 12 April 2000 "The revisionist historian David Irving is facing ruin..."
• The Guardian: David Irving jailed for Holocaust denial 20 February 2006, "The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving was today sentenced to three years in prison after he admitted denying the Holocaust."
• The Daily Telegraph: Irving held in Austria for denying Holocaust 18 November 2005. "The British revisionist historian David Irving has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust"

--PBS (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism in Pakistani textbooks

I do not think this section as it is written at the moment is useful, it mixes up two things.

The first is a national bias, something that all/most the school book on the history of any nation do. For example the articles in Wikipedia on the history of the electronic computer, the history of the telephone and the history of television, must come as a real eye opener to many British and American readers, as the histories of both countries tend to emphasise their own national contributions in these areas while downplaying the those of other nations.

The second is historical revisionism as used in this article which is described in by Richard J. Evans in Historical revisionism (negationism)#Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists.

A third point is that the use of the term may be an ad hominem by those who disagree with the view of history presented in Pakistani textbooks, to undermine those books without any evidence presented that it involves the techniques as described by Evans. (We don't like the Pakistan's view on history so it must be an historical revisionist view).

Unless the section is rewritten to make these POVs clear I think we should delete the section. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The same argument can be extended to the anti-India links cited in the article as well. I find it interesting that those edits are aggressively warred into the article, whereas the exhaustively sourced material on Pakistan are promptly removed.70.112.205.8 (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What anti-India links are cited in the article? --PBS (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP above is banned user Hkelkar. The other IP on this talk page (86.xx.xx.xx) is banned user Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism and artistic reputations

I am not sure that this section covers negationism rather than legitimate historical revisionism. user:AlbertSM lease explain why it is negationism. --PBS (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

Is there any real difference between pseudohistory and Historical revisionism (negationism)? Please see my post at Talk:Pseudohistory#Historical_revisionism_.28negationism.29. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OSCE

This article seems to be pretty biased in favour of western views. It has no examples at all of western revisionism when there are plenty. I added one example of the recent OSCE move to equate Nazism to Stalinism and blame them both equally for the start of WWII. I think this should stay in the article for NPOV purposes. Even if you disagree with Russia's objection, it's still in stark contrast with most accepted history, and it's still an attempt to change history even though it's not based on any new or recently discovered historic documents or findings. And on the other hand, even if you think certain things in this article are clear examples of historic revisionism, there will be many Japanese, Russian etc.. historians who disagree with you. But they don't have a right to delete content they disagree with, just as you don't. LokiiT (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(MOVED FROM LokiiT's TALK PAGE)

You reverted my edit in Historical revisionism (negationism) by comment [5] "the OSCE story has nothing to do with the historic truth commission, and restoring npov edits, please be careful with the revert button". Please, do not make threats. I have no choice, but revert your edit for two reasons: a) Your OSCE russian delegation -comments are more news flash than improvement of the article b) Your edit is not NPOV, as you promote this pro-Kremlin project (glorify Stalin, deny the occupation of the Baltic states etc.) and those views are not very wide supported outside Russia (I wonder why...). I suggest you either merge your edits to article Historical Truth Commission, start new article or write to Wikinews. Peltimikko (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat, I'm sorry it came off that way. I was just asking you to be careful not to revert entire edits when you only mean to change a few parts, because you ended up undoing some npov word changes and fixes to the paragraph that was already on the page. Also I most certainly did not glorify Stalin or deny the occupation of the Baltic states, that accusation is entirely unfounded and I have no idea what would make you come to that conclusion. Take a look at this carefully, the top paragraph changes. How on Earth does that glorify Stalin or deny the occupation of the Baltic states? That's utter nonsense, those changes were made to reflect what the article itself says. As for your "news flash" comment, the same thing could be said for the entire "modern Russia" section. It's all based on recent "news flash" events.LokiiT (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course it gets removed again for some bogus reason that makes no sense whatsoever. The pro-west mob has spoken, I shall argue no further. LokiiT (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the "David Irving" Reference

The reference to "Malte Herwig The Swastika Wielding Provocateur in Der Spiegel 16 January 2006" Is broke. There is the link I found in Internet.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,395810,00.html

But I can´t edit.

In other way. I read the two diary articles and not find anithing about a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history"or the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6

Is a much better referentce (It appears in David Irving) so I propose change the two for this --Ignium (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Title of the topic. "Historical revisionism (negationism)"

About the confusion between this and the article "Historical revisionism" —Ignium (via posting script) 19:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Merged with my previous comment

Reading the archive I found that the problem about the title comes from 2006, and there, exist a discussion about the same point.

One of the most repeated point was the rules of Wikipedia naming conventions of who I quote:

If the article's subject has no evident name, a concise, recognizable and neutral description is used instead. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources

An one of the answers I received was.

TThere is also a practice by non-historians and non-scholars, who deny past events while claiming they're engaging in revising lies about the past. The second practice is also called Historical revisionism. Following wikipedia's naming policies, the first article gets the primary name, the second is disambiguated with the qualifier (negationism),

When I question about the references for say that, I get Footnotes 2 and 3.

The footnote two, of the UNESCO, says "historical negationism" and "revisionism" don´t appear in entire text. The footnote three, the page 33 of "The unmaking of fascist aesthetics - By Kriss Ravetto" Only explains the tendence of historans of confuse "relativism" with "revisionism". Pointing that as a mistake.

The two footnotes don´t say anything about "The second practice is also called Historical revisionism"

I quote one of our references

"Crucial to understanding and combating Holocaust denial is a clear distinction between denial and revisionism. One of the more insidious and dangerous aspects of contemporary Holocaust denial, a la Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith and Greg Raven, is the fact that they attempt to present their work as reputable scholarship under the guise of 'historical revisionism.' The term 'revisionist' permeates their publications as descriptive of their motives, orientation and methodology. In fact, Holocaust denial is in no sense 'revisionism,' it is denial... Contemporary Holocaust deniers are not revisionists

Here we can read that the Denial or Negationist is a kind of fake historical revisionism

Other quote:

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.

This quotes show that "negationism" or "denial" are quite different of "revisionism" and point the importance of mark this concept.

In watch of this, and knowing that the Wikipedia is, at 2009, the first page that appear a in web search, we are in a noncense letting the confusioon of an a disambiguation that looks as a synonymous.

¿Proposals?

Negationism. "the guideline is specifically to use the unambiguous name when the most common name is unavailable. This clearly has nothing to do with "national varieties of English"; it's just a difference between popular and academic writing. There are a number of references for "negationism" and "negationist on on JSTOR," - Pharos - 2006

I can´t contribute more, and there was no answer for this.

Fake historical revisionism (Negationism) Fake can be any word that means "false". This englobes much better the concept of the misunderstand.

Pseudo historical revisionism (Negationism) Idem

Or these, but reverting the words.

--Ignium (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see the section above #Proposed re-titling and cleanup

Negationism is not a common name in English. Historical revisionism is. It is quite easy to find lots of other sources which use Historical revisionism as it is used in this article, for example see footnote 37 of the article. Now it may be in the future that if negationism becomes more common we could move the article, but at the moment historical revisionism is far more common a term. --PBS (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the entire archive before do this but thanks for the help.

Searching in Google I found 159K matches for "Historical revisionism", and 116K for "negationism" Remembering that "Historical revisionism" could come to refer to two meanings, the first number is not defing.

In other hand, the example you posted is against the mere concept of "historical revisionism" and, in that case, it must been in the proper article of "historical revisionism" and not in this mere fake case.

At last. This is an Enciclopedia. We must not adapt to the mistakes of the newspapers. They must use us. --Ignium (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers such as the Times are reliable sources, and are more influential on the common usage of words than small circulation specialised academic journals. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tow points. First justify that hipotesis (Im from Argentina. Here the two most important newspapers do a lot of malicious notes and are stuck in a good number of corruption cases despite the excelent level of the periodists) Second, my reference to the newspapers was pending of an old argument that wasn´t repeated, ergo there is no point in this comments about newsp.

I really need feedblack about my arguments. I will use the recourse of "concensus by editting" only as last recourse for calling attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignium (talk • contribs) 05:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback? This section is incoherent and ridiculous. The name developed here was developed out of a long and argumentative consensus process, and I can see no argument here to overturn that. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was abandoned. The only reason found was the low use of the word "Negationist" in English and It was a 3 years old discussion. I put in evidence that the principal premise (low use) is no longer valid but the confusion remains. All these do your supossition of "ridiculous" quite subjetive.

And thanks for your participation. --Ignium (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Ukraine

I suggest that we remove this section, as it is not clear that there is a general consensus on this issue and as such it does not bring any clarity to this article. -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Under the same logic we should remove the Contemporary Russia section. LokiiT (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, re: contemporary Russia, which is somewhat mistitled at least until a more thorough discussion of opposing Russian viewpoints can be sourced and added to the narrative. I've restored with an appropriate title. It is clear from both Russian and western sources that a certain version of historical accounts is approved of by the current Russian administration and others clearly disapproved of (and likely on the way to criminalization, but another topic). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By preferable accounts of history, are you referring to perhaps those of Solzhenitsyn et el? If not (and I assume not), why are his accounts mandatory study material for high school students and hence approved by the current administration? And why is this new "pro-Soviet" book not? Your claim of consensus on a current affair is alarmingly dubious. LokiiT (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not making any statement about preference, nor of some overarching group consensus. Statements by parties on opposite sides of accounts of the Soviet legacy, e.g.,

• Baltics were occupied versus stating Baltics were occupied should be criminalized, and
• what is, or is not, mentioned regarding other events and what is said about them

are demonstrably incompatible accounts of history. I retitled the section to focus on the official position of the Russian administration to remove ambiguity. The position of Medvedev's commission in general and statements by the commission's members specifically communicate a clear consensus.

   Solzhenitsyn is dead the last I heard, meanwhile Lavrov has yet to experience an epiphany although he was sitting across the table at the dénouement of the USSR about to agree to recognize the Soviet Union "occupied" the Baltic states. I have this on account of those sitting at the same table. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Again if we apply this same logic to Holodomor it's clear that the genocide theories are no more acceptable accounts of history than denial of the occupation of the Baltic states. The fact that only a small club of politically motivated countries (decades after all the facts were established) along with zero authoritative international bodies have recognized Holodomor as a genocide, while the theory's main proponents are Ukrainian nationalists, speaks for itself. Both of our examples are in the same league of controversial fringe views. All I can gather from your argument is that you agree with one and not the other. You haven't demonstrated how one is more historically valid; and you can't. I've done a great degree of reading on these topics and I know well the general consensuses. LokiiT (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary China

Why is there no section on recent historical revisionism by the Chinese communist party? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Johan Bäckman?

I have asked a WP:BLP related question about Johan Bäckman at Category talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)#Johan Bäckman?. I do not know if anyone follows the talk pages of categories. Could someone who is and expert on negationism please comment there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions to section on Soviet history

I am reverting the following additions by C.J. Griffin (talk · contribs) in the section Soviet history.

Numerous revisionist scholars in the West have been accused of whitewashing the crimes of Stalinism. Jerry F. Hough, a "pioneering revisionist" according to John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, claims in his 1979 book "How the Soviet Union is Governed" that, regarding the numbers executed in the Great Purge, "a figure in the low hundreds of thousands seems much more probable than one in the high hundreds" and that a lower figure of only "tens of thousands" was "even probable" (pp. 175-177). Hough also claimed that the "beneficiaries of the purges" were much more numerous. Archival data released after the collapse of the USSR has put the number of documented executions at close to 700,000. Memorial society puts the number at 724,000.

In Life and Terror in Stalin's Russia, 1934-1941, Robert W. Thurston makes the claim that Stalin "was not guilty of mass first-degree murder from 1934 to 1941" (pp. 227-228). In a review of Thurston's book for The New York Times, Steven Merritt Miner asks:

"How, then, to explain things like his decision one day in March 1940 to shoot more than 20,000 Polish prisoners -- an atrocity Mr. Thurston does not discuss? It seems that Stalin believed his victims really were enemies. If we were to accept this twisted logic, of course, there could be practically no such thing as murder, since most killers believe their victims deserve their fate."

References

The section is an WP:OR WP:SYNthesis of the – in this case primary – sources used. The most reliable secondary source on the issue presented (Klas-Göran Karlsson) in fact totally contradicts what is said. The source uses the term "Revisionism" in a meaning totally different from what is implied here (negationism). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - The article on Soviet and Communist studies gives a description of the "traditionalists" (i.e. Cold War totalitarianist) and "revisionists" schools of thought. Karlsson also presents a "Postrevisionists" school. -- Petri Krohn (talk)

P.P.S. - A similar WP:SYNthesis is presented in Great Purge#Western reactions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

what is negationism?

Is negationism just "denial of historic crimes" or is it any kind of hateful or politically motivated pseudohistory? If the former a number of things in Category:Historical revisionism (negationism) should be removed, as well as the section on Pakistan in this article.Prezbo (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem that this article's definition of "negationism" as a general phenomenon isn't backed up by any reference.Prezbo (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It was backed up with citations of example sources, but they were removed because it was argued that they were unreliable (and as they were negationist this was true). -- PBS (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox vs. Revisionist Cold War historians

I removed part of the last paragraph on Soviet history, as it refers to a legitimate debate among historians (in the 70s and 80s mostly), rather than the denial of any crimes involving Stalin and his lot. If there are any objections to the removal, please present your arguments here.--红卫兵 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to negationism

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Negationism — Shorter title, no disambig so apparently nothing to confuse it with other types of "negationism". BillMasen (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the common name in English is "Historical revisionism" negationism is nowhere near as frequently used. We only have negationism in the title because we need to disambiguate the page from the other meaning of Historical revisionism. Negationism as used in the French meaning means negating genocide and more specifically the Holocaust. "Historical revisionist (negationism)" can be for any fraudulent distortion of history for nationalistic, idelogical, commercial, or other nefarious reasons such as to gain notoriety. -- PBS (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per PBS. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC) The term "Historical denial" has plenty of google hits (eg.,over 3,000 in Google Books). Moreover the very first supporting quote from this article says: "These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial", which in fact means: "... between historical revisionism and historical denial". The term pretty much self-descripting: the discussed flavor of HR is about denial of commonly accepted views and even facts in favor of some other interpretations.

Accordingly, the intro phrase will be greatly simplified:

Historical denial or denialism is the illegitimate distortion of the historical record such that certain events appear in a more or less favourable light. It is also commonly called historical revisionism, however it must be distinguished from the legitimate critical scientific methodology of historical revisionism.

Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because it is a really uncommon term in the UK (WP:RETAIN). Using the same search engine you did returns a total of 359 ghits for the UK to put it in context there are >1,600 for "historical revisionism" Irving. While this UK search is comparing unreliable sources, it is unlikely that the ratio (20%) would be different in reliable sources as only 3 of the pages returned were from UK national papers [6],[7], [8]. Searching on ac.uk (the UK equivalent of edu) returns 46 to 215 (21%). I used Irving as a filter to exclude positive use of "Historical Revisionism" If I used Irving as a filter on "Historical denial" in the ac.uk domain just one item is returned [9]. -- PBS (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that the purpose of this article is primarily "historical revisionism." That's the term/technique being described. To remove that from the title probably wouldn't make this page any clearer. While I also wanted to rename the page, I don't want to take "historical revisionism" out. I'd prefer the dab 'negationism' be changed -- to "denial," or "techniques," or "propaganda," or "illegitimate," or "distortion..." etc. I'm all about clarifying, but I don't think this proposed move accomplishes that. Akay2 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• REname but to Historical negationism. "revisionism" is a neutral word. Academic historians are revising the accepted view of historical events all the time, as they find new evidence. Historiography is the study of the changing views of historians, in other words examining the differing views on a subject. This is a legitimate part of academic life; indeed many hisotircalk articles will start by setting out the existing views, and then go on to show how they are wrong, or which of the rival views the author supports. That is legitimate revisionism. This article is about something quite different, which some one will propound a view for which there is little or no evidnce in the teeth of the facts. I know that the term "holocaust denial" is used for a blatant example of this, but I think the longer word is more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.