Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

---

Archives
negationism 1 2 3

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)

Intro slightly POV?

Hi. I read the article intro and I found it a little POV. It contains sentences/words which put the topic in a negative light, such as "ignoring essential facts", "to distort", "it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities". I do not dare to change it since it is such a delicate topic and I am not a native speaker of english, but I'd like if some of you considered what I've said. Bye --87.10.191.186 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is POV by definition, no one calls negationism undistorted and legitimate, see historical revisionism. -- Stbalbach 13:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than the Holocaust is there any/many other areas of historical revisionism? Wikipedia seems to be fixated soley/primarily on Holocaust protection - the Ukranian hoocaust has its small group- there must be others. Are ther cases where what would have been called historical revision(negationism) turned out to have uncovered the truth and became the new orthodoxy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Search and you will find - the Lavon Affair ( went from a denied nonevent to admission after 50 years). A list of other - there must be hundreds - events in history that were uncovered by diligent research that gave a 189% change in the historical record. Many parts of the main concern of the antirevisionists - the holocaust - have been revised, often by believers. An historical event that doesn't change with time and reserch is suspect you would think. If every eyewitness was 100% correct, all the time, then why have "historians".

You obviously do not have a good idea about the way that Historians work. And the Holocaust has never remained unchanged as you seem to allege. New research is always being dug up, in some cases literally. Darkmind1970 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1984 citation questioned

The mention of the novel "1984" as an example of negationism seems puzzling. I'm not certain if the article refrences the behavior of the fictional governmental entities in the novel or the novel itself as an example. 68.45.143.196 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Bill 5 December 2006

truth

The question is - who is denying the truth. The negationism label sounds like a way to brand a historian who is getting too close to your ox. What is the term that describes someone who tries to hide an unpleasant fact from others - I hope it isn't mainstearm or legitimate or accredited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

denying "essential facts" - how does a fact become "essential". Can an "essential fact" be questioned scientifically? If an "essential fact" is impossible, is it "essential". This article sounds foolish.

Indeed. The entire definition of Negationism is sophistry. "a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream History." Give me a type of revisionism that doesn't refute accepted History, and I'll show you how it isn't revisionism. The previous definition is no different than "the critical reexamination of historical facts" listed as the definition for Historical Revisionism. It is just framed differently.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that the Holocaust didn't happen or anything - I just see a division that doesn't actually exist. "Fact" isn't democratically determined, so how can a theory be false simply because it goes against "mainstream History". Anne Curry denies that it was 4:1 odds at Agincourt, does that make her wrong even though History traditionally accepts that "fact". Revisionism IS the denial of established History. If there is any difference between Holocaust Denial and Revisionism it is the use of sophistry, not disagreement with public opinion. Kelden (talk • contribs). 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Bias

Doesn't the part about Macedonianism seems slightly biased? 141.217.108.100 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 13/12/06 1:09 PM EST Dan

Recent Revisionism

What about the President of Iran's comments about the Holocaust? Shouldn't that be mentioned here? I have heard that this is common among education of Muslims in Muslim countries- denial or complete absence of mention among Muslims. [1] poopsix 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is just illustrative examples, we are trying to keep away from listing controversial or on-going debates. I suppose if you have some neutral source such as an international body or court of law that labeled it as negationism it might be more credible - otherwise we enter into a long debate from two sides if it really is negationism or not - not the purpose of this article. -- Stbalbach 16:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you delve into what Muslim kids are taught you might open up a bag of worms. What are nonMuslim kids taught, if you get my drift.

Delve into what is passed off as history in the USA. The process has become more efficient these days "Operation Enduring Freedom" and the like. Revised in advance.78.16.27.248 (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Islamic invasion of India

It's not clear that this section is dealing with out-right negationism, or just normal controversy surrounding historical events. Is there an objective independent source that calls what is happening negationism in order to verify? -- Stbalbach 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some have alleged this (see Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam). Obviously, there are political issues that go both ways so nobody is "objective" here, but ...Rumpelstiltskin223 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it gets complex when it's not clearly negationism but just one side claiming negationism. This article is not a "List of negationism", but rather the theory of negationism with "Examples of negationism" -- so we have stuck with the clear and illustrative cases, and tried to avoid the controversial and on-going ones. The source provided is probably not a neutral one - is there some sort of international body, a judge or court that has commented on it? -- Stbalbach 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to be the case for Macedonism either. No international body etc there either.Do you want the whole India section deleted or reworded somehow? Rumpelstiltskin223 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So there is a dispute about this issue. There are lots of disputes about lots of controversial historical events, but to be a case of historical revisionism (nagationism) someone needs to be falsifying the facts and distorting history. In this example it is not clear to me who is meant to be the negationist. Can someone please explain this to me so that the example can be clarified? If not then it should be deleted. --PBS 10:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the above I have moved the section to the talk page until someone clarifies it:

>===Islamic invasion of India===

Some historians in India deny the atrocities committed by the invading Islamic armies during the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent in order to promote an image of historical "Hindu-Muslim communal amity". Authors like M.N. Roy have written that Islam had fulfilled a historic mission of equality and abolition of discrimination, and that for this, Islam had been welcomed into India by the lower castes. If at all any violence had occurred, it was as a matter of justified class struggle by the progressive forces against the reactionary forces, meaning the feudal Hindu upper castes (this despite the fact that converts to Islam were subjected to the Caste system among South Asian Muslims).Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the conversions to Islam typically represented by the following schools of thought:

1. That Muslims sought conversion through jihad or political violence
2. A related view is that conversions occurred for pragmatic reasons such as social mobility among the Muslim ruling elite
3. Conversion was a result of the actions of Sufi saints and involved a genuine change of heart
4. Conversion from Buddhists and the lower castes for social mobility and a rejection of oppressive caste strictures
5. Was a combination, initially made under duress followed by a genuine change of heart

Embedded within this lies the concept of Islam as a foreign imposition and Hinduism being a natural condition of the natives who resisted, resulting the failure of the project to Islamicize the Indian subcontinent and is highly embroiled with the politics of the partition and communalism in India. Other reasons given for the size of the Muslim expansion are the genocide of Hindu's, migrations and the influence of Arab traders along the Indian Ocean.

An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Marxist figure Irfan Habib for its "agenda" and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam spread through violence. Sir Jadunath Sarkar contended that that several Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects." In particular the records kept by al-Utbi, Mahmud al-Ghazni's secretary, in the Tarikh-i-Yamini document several episodes of bloody military campaigns. Hindus who converted to Islam however were not completely immune to persecution due to the Muslim Caste System in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari. , where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes. None of this is discussed in modern Indian historical scholarship. The allegation is that Marxist historiographers are propounding a biased and revisionist version of history that whitewashes the persecution of Hindus under Islamic rule, part of a rising trend of negationism in India in trying to justify the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and their alliance with the far left.

--PBS 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia & Macedonia examples

The article presently includes Serbia and the Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism as examples of historical revisionism.

1. I believe that both are poor examples of historical revisionism. Serbia and the Yugoslav Wars is more an example of war-time propaganda rather than a revision of previously accepted historical facts.
2. If one wanted to include an example from the former YU it would, for example, seem just as appropriate to mention Croatian or Bosniak historical revisionism as part of the nation-forming process for both these countries.

Because of its sinister connotations with Holocaust denial, the "revisionism" is a quite popular label to attempt to taint political opponent. Allowing these two isolated examples, by no means widely accepted as examples of "historical revisionism" while ignoring other which are better suited as examples of historical revisionism, this article is being used for political purposes. I suggest that these two examples be removed or extensively altered. Cheers Osli73 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as Serbia/Yugoslavia is concerned, it's past war-time propaganda since the Bosnian war ended 12 years ago. All the sources quoted here are up-to-date web pages which means this view is still very active. So it is revisionism by every account. Even the present Serbian government still refuses to admit most war crimes were in fact committed (Srebrenica anniversary ignored in Serbia, for example). So it's a good example as any. Feel free to edit if you have sources and think you could do it more neutral.The Spanish Inquisitor 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments on your reasoning here:

• Both of these are examples of original research. You are using various material/sources to make your own analysis and draw your own conclusions. Wikipedia is not original thought.
• The sources you have provided are either in Serbian/Croatian (and therefore not very good sources) or in English but not on the subject of revisionism. In fact, none of the sources you cite mention revisionism.
• If you could find a number of credible sources (which in this case would be respected media or research) citing 'Macedonism' and 'Serbia' as examples of historical revisionism, that would be a different matter.

Cheers Osli73 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisitor, You might want to take a look at this on drawing conclusions from published material[2] on the Wikipedia:No original research. It says that:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Take a look at it and tell me how it fits with the two sections we're discussing here. Regards Osli73 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see it as 'original research' as it simply translates:

a) That there exists a revisionist attitute in Serbia (as evident by provided links talking about "anti-Serb conspiracies")

b) That such revisionists fail to acknowledge committed crimes as genocide (as seen by links that say so)

c) That this attitute is widespread in Serbia (as evident, for example, by glancing at the Serb Wikipedia article on the Bosnian, Kosovo or Croatian war).

This is hard to dismiss as pro- or con-Serb propaganda as not a single Serbian government ever appologized for any of the crimes committed - so that's politically serious (not to mention the single most popular political party there is the one assosiated with the worst war's paramilitary units). There are also a lot of other (non-local) sources which talk about strength of propaganda in Serbia (for example books by Cohen), which I will source when I get the chance. I still won't enter the Macedonian example as I do not have the knowledge on the subject to make an assestment, it just seems to me it is not a proper case of revisionism, unlike the Serbian example.The Spanish Inquisitor 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisitor, I'll reiterate my comments above for clarity:

1. no doubt, the websites you refer to as 'sources' are nationalist websites, however
2. you are using these sources to draw your own conclusions which is not in line with Wikipedia:No original research.
3. none of the 'sources' you list mention historical revisionism in Serbia

Do you agree that we take out these examples? Otherwise, the only possible next step as I see it is to take this to an administrators notice board for comments. Regards Osli73 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The named sources did not call it that, they were an example of historical revisionism. I added a new link naming it as such. I could find more sources if needs be, but this Princeton article names a few.The Spanish Inquisitor 14:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is much better! A couple of comments though:

1. he talks specifically about Kosovo, not Bosnia or other 'Yugoslav wars'. So, it would only be an example of revisionism regarding Nato's casus belli for Kosovo
2. nowhere does he imply that this revisionism is taking place in Serbia (in fact, I get the feeling that he is adressing those who say that Kosovo has become a mess after Nato intervention). So, based on this source it would be wrong to infer that this is a case of Serbian revisionism.
3. as a representative of Nato he is clearly partisan in the issue, so, it would be "alleged revisionism" if we were to use it
4. if we are to use this source we would need to change the two replace the two current examples with an example of Revisionism regarding the justification for Nato's attack on Serbia in 1999 or something to that effect
5. the other 'sources' which have been cited would have to be removed as they would have nothing to do with historical revisionism (plus, they're not in English).

All the best Osli73 15:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Robertson's speech, I agree, he isn't the happiest of sources, so I'll try to find better ones, he just uses the exact phrase, which is why I found it significant, it's just unfortunate (but politically correct concering recent trends) to avoid the word 'Serb'. Like I said, the section could use some extensive rewording, but qualifies to stay. I'll look up more sources and add them as I find them (have to research some more material).

I'm still undecided about Macedonia - I was for deletion, but the first new link analyses that problem too - and more neutrally then this section - but it's still not a classical case of revisionism, which is typically more associated with war and crimes due to Holocaust, so I say remove.The Spanish Inquisitor 15:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that Balkan nationalism includes a lot of historical revisionism (as, in fact, does almost all nationalism). However, if we are going to use this as an example, it should be based on some reputable sources claiming it as such. We should not be the ones citing various examples of nationalist historical propaganda and then calling this historical revisionism. Since this is a popular word to sling at opponents, we have to watch out for 'sources' where the term is used in a polemic way by non-experts. Eg just because a Serbian nationalists/commentator calls Bosniak history 'revisionism' doesn't necessarily make it so. In the meantime, I believe we should remove these two examples until we can replace them with a reworked example. Regards Osli73 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A very current example of the use of the term historical revisionism would be the ongoing spat between Italy and Croatia regarding events at the end of WWII. Here is commentary by the BBC. Cheers Osli73 16:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with what Osli73 is saying. An example in these archives of this talk page is the difference between Joseph Goebbels's war time propaganda including the inflating the deaths reported by the police by a factor of ten, and the use of those numbers by people like David Irving (even after he had acknowledged that they were not accurate) which is historical revisionism. The list here is meant to be examples that clearly illustrate the illegitimate use of historical revisionism. If the examples are not clear on the difference between propaganda and historical revisionism (negationism), then I do not think that they should be included in this article, because any example which is not clear does not illuminate the issue for readers fresh to the topic.

Spats between historians are usual, to be historical revisionism (of either type) then the position being advanced needs to be sufficiently radical that the current view of that historical event would need to be radically revised to accomidate the new explanation. The argument over Irving and Dresden was not so much that 25K or 135K causes a paradigm shift in the historical view on the Allied stratigic bombing campaign, but that it was part of his covert attempt at Holocust denial, or at least to present a postiont that there was a parity in the moral behaviour of the Axis and Allied leadership, which is a clear case of historical revisionism (negationism). --PBS 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Serbia & Yugoslav Wars and Macedonism aren't very good examples of historical revisionism and should be taken out. The other ones in there are less controversial and could stay. Regards Osli73 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Following the above discussion I have acted to remove the two examples in qustion. Regards Osli73 10:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Crypto-revisionism" doesn't seem like a well established term

Googling for "Crypto-revisionism" (excluding Wikipedia and mirror sites like answers.com) I get only 58 hits.[3] That seems kind of low for it to be considered an established term and for us to know enough about it to include it in the article. If we can't find any good sources describing what it is we should take it out. Regards Osli73 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a pejorative neologism - there are many neologism's on Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with mentioning that it exists. As for what it means exactly, as with all neologism's, it can mean different things depending on who uses it and in what context. Here is one example from a printed source. -- Stbalbach 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese attempts to rewrite Korean History

Regarding this section, recently added and moved here:

===Chinese attempts to rewrite Korean History=== Starting from the 1980's, the People's Republic of China began to re-identify Goguryeo, especially the first half of Goguryeo's history before it moved its capital to the Korean peninsula, as a part of the regional history of China rather than of Korea. More recently, this effort has been called the [[c|Northeast Project]]. The rationales deployed are simply illogical given that: 1) Goguryeo defeated the [[Sui_Dynasty|Sui]] and [[Tang_Dynasty|Tang]] Dynasties of China several times before finally being destroyed by a Tang and Silla alliance.* 2) Additionally, this claim made by the Chinese government's[[Northeast_Project_of_the_Chinese_Academy_of_Social_Science|Northeast Project]] is impossible given that the claim following the fall of Goguryeo only a few hundred thousand of its estimated 4 million inhabitants were taken into captivity by China and not the whole population. The Goguryeo state continued with Balhae, which considered itself as the successor of Goguryeo; when Balhae was destroyed, its population dissipated into the Korean dynasty of Goryeo. Hence, Silla was not the sole source of the modern Korean nation.* 3) The claim that only the present South Korean Jeolla and Kyongsang regions were descendants of Samhan, where is south of Geum River. There are more Koreans descended from inhabitants from outside Samhan and Silla, i.e., north of Geum River. North Koreans are descendants of Goguryeo, and North Korean shares the same languange and culture with the South Koreans. *[http://www.koreaaward.com/korea/GeographyPeople_PeoplePopulation.htm/ Ministry of Culture and Tourism Republic of Korea]

This has no reliable and verifiable sources to back it up as being historical revisionism. It also reads like original research. The examples used in this article are supposed to be well know, un-ambiguous, and clearly backed up by the best possible sources. Who called this thing in Korea "historical revisionism"? Was it an international body? Or was it someone who disagrees with Chinese policy and wants to label it as historical revisionism? Who are these critics who are calling it historical revisionism? Are there people who disagree with these critics? -- Stbalbach 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO confrence and negationism

From my talk page

Hi. You restored a particular reference for the use of 'negationism' in the above article. I'm afraid it doesnt qualify as an encyclopaedic reference; Koenraad Elst, as his wp bio will show, is something of a fringe scholar in historical terms, and his use of the word is particularly coloured by both his polemic and cultural background (he is Belgian); it is thus does not serve as an argument for the increasing use of the word in the mainstream.

More generally, that sentence sounds like OR to me. One would imagine that a reliable peer-reviewed source has actually discussed the increasing use of the word and could be cited. Hornplease 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters whether Koenraad Elst is a fringe scholar or not (if he is so much the better to make the point), the point of the footnote is to show that the word is not commonly use in English and when it is it does not necessarily refer to the Holocaust. The phrase was used in an UNESCO "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" and as such is a valid reliable source not matter who the person was using the term (and in the citation only UNESCO is mentioned not Koenraad Elst). --PBS 13:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese historical revisionism

I made a few changes to this. The problem is that the people who write this stuff keep sounding off about Koizumi, Yasukuni Shrine, textbooks, etc. What is needed is not the same old litany of complaints by "Chinese up in arms", but a sober look at the ways that historical revisionism occurs in Japan. I specifically removed the bit on Koizumi's visits to the shrine. This may be politically controversial, but it's hard to see how it qualifies as 'historical revisionism'.

Given the nature of the politics and feelings involved, it is probably predictable that this page will be used for Japan-bashing. But historical revisionism doesn't merely apply to such obvious targets as the Japanese. (Someone has deleted the section on Chinese historical revisionism with regard to Korean history -- another contentious issue. It appears that some things can be called "historical revisionism" and others can't. Very POV indeed!)

Bathrobe 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This section mentions attempts to downplay the atomic bombings, as revisionist. What about the fact that most of what is said about the bombings claiming they were a nuclear haulacaust is in fact revisionist?

Examples:

1. The atomic bombings were optional, unecessary, and Japan would have surrendered anyway. This op-ed in the New York Times proves otherwise. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/05/nyt.kristof/ in this article the Emperor's own advisors say that Japan would not have surrendered had the bomb not been dropped.

2. The atomic bombings were a haulacaust. The fact is the atomic bombings killed fewer people then firebombing, the invasion of Okinawa, ect . . . this article also shows why the bombing was a necessary military action http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/AtomBomb_Japan.html

3. Japan when it talks about the U.S. targeting civillians ignores the fact that through out the entire war the Japanese did not distinguish between civillians and combatents, until the atomic bombing at the very end.

This is all relevant information about how Japanese historians that refuse to acknoweledge their own war crimes, have attempted to attack Americans for a bombing that would not have happened had Japan not attacked the U.S. in the first place. 216.201.33.20 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the section needs a lot of rewriting. The atomic bomb paragraph represents a sentiment common in Japan, and was probably inserted by someone who agrees with that sentiment, possibly as a tit-for-tat for the preceding section on war crimes and revisionist history.

Everyone is trying to rewrite history, usually in a way that benefits themselves. This article could be miles long if you included all known attempts at revisionism, not just the ones that get the limelight or incite controversy.

Bathrobe 07:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A more fundamental criticism of this section is if a nation has a national perspective on history that is different to another nations is that negationism? Nations are to a degree built on a simplified history that highlights and embellishes some points and downplays others. If one is not a linguist, and realise on the ones own mother tongue for sources, it is inevitable that ones well sourced essay/article/book will reflect the sources already published. There is a real danger in this article of presenting an English speaking world view as the norm and any other view as revisionism (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). For those views to become negationism in this article, and not to be WP:OR, one needs to find source preferably by a person from the same nations that say that a specific essay/article/book/ is historical revisionism (negationism). For someone from a different nation to present facts and draw different conclusions from those of the mainstream English language historians is a long way removed from the deliberate falsification of history for political ends by those such as David Irving --PBS 08:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge genocide denial here

Both terms refer to the same concept. Tazmaniacs 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The other article is full of a bias (non NPOV) that makes its contents unsuitable for this article, personally I would delete that article --PBS 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Up for an Afd? Tazmaniacs 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, as it is too long and will swamp what is here. A link to it is enough / essential.Red Hurley 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is already too long. It is better to keep genocide denial as a separate article.Biophys 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism and Wikipedia

Would it be fitting to add a paragraph or a few sentences mentioning history revisionism in regards to what some people might do with Wikipedia? I don't want to add this myself because I think it might be too bold of a statement, but it could be used as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwonam (talk • contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. With all those paid operatives out there trolling to delete anything negative about their favorite issue! (As opposed to us unpaid independent scholars who get points in because we want to expand knowledge or counter propaganda from operatives :-) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest (Anyone remember name of that wiki search engine that finds IPs of paid operatives? Does it have own page? Want to bookmark it.)

By the way, this is an ironic article since Historical revisionism itself is missing some big issues -- one example, the fight to get the truth out about Roosevelt Admin's foreknowledge of PEARL HARBOR -- and that might be a topic for this article! Two sides of the same coin, really!

Carol Moore 22:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Soviet and Russian history/Few general questions about terms and approaches

First, I have some doubts that the source, Daily Herald, can be considered as "reliable peer-reviewed academic work". Second, I do not deny that history of Russia was written anew several times. I am just a little bit surprized, that Wikipedia take sides. There is no mention of altered history in the "beacons of democracy" on the former Soviet Union space. Or celebration of SS in republics of Baltic Sea region is not historical denial? If needed, references to official laws can be provided easily. Or honouring in Ukrain the UPA, wihch fougth on the Nazi's side and responcible for about half of civilian losses? The veterans of this group are now heroes of nation by order of president Viktor Yushchenko. (For some reasons, wikipedia article about Ukrain does not mention those "non-essential" facts.) Finally, way of theach history in Russia is quite different from US swallowing of facts. Not all the information comes from the school books, especially related to recent history. A lot of topics are the subject of discussion, based on the newspapers, TV broadcasts and direct life experience. So my suggestion is to consider this chapter unbalanced and needed to be revised, or to exclude it as representing clear political preference of the author's point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.139.37 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism_%28negationism%29&diff=prev&oldid=126711190 "Historical revisionism" (also but less often in English "negationism" is the denial of historic crimes. The word is derived from the French term Le négationnisme, which refers to Holocaust denial. It is now also sometimes used for more general political historical revisionism as in:

• Dr Koenraad Elst Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam (1992). ISBN 81-85990-01-8

Wikipedia is global, so the Indian view of the term negationism should also be included in this article. Negationism happens not only in the West.

have removed[4] this text as being an unsourced and pov synthesis. all material added to Wikipedia articles must be reliably sourced. Doldrums (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Richard J. Evans

I have just restored a deletion of a cited quotation from Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, and expert witness at the Irving v. Lipstadt. The text was delete with the comment "rm non-notable book by WP:FRINGE author, rm uncited and OR". It is difficult to think of anyone who is better qualified to comment on the methods used by negationists than this man! --PBS (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An error, obviously. I explained in my edit comment. Quote was too long, though. Relata refero (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam

From the history of the article:

• 12:43, 4 March 2008 PBS (This says nothing of who or what Koenraad Elst is, just an example of a book title with "negationism" in it. please take it to the talk page before repeated deletion.)
• 10:09, 5 March 2008 Relata refero (Its on your talkpage, PBS, respond. One fringe book title with the same word as the article subject is not encyclopaedic.)

From my talk page:

Will you please stop putting Elst back in? Read his Wikipedia article, please. The man's a non-notable fringe author who's been lathered all over WP by a bunch of SPAs, many of whom are now banned. Relata refero (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As the book title is being used to demonstrate the infrequent use of "negationism" in English I fail to see why your criticism that he is a fringe author is relevant. Please explain further --PBS (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What the point of the map?

Extended content

What the point of the map? It has no relation to the content of the article - except that historical revisionists are anti-Semites, which means, among other things, not credible authorities. They are primarily know for their incredible holocaust denial. Jewish Population in Europe in 1939 --Ludvikus (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) What is you evidence that they are primarily known for their incredible holocaust denial. Surly different illegitimate historical revisionism takes place in different fields by different people. "They" implies one coherent group. --PBS (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) OK. Thank you for joinging me in a discourse. We do not know one another. So I Assume Good Faith regarding your person. First (1) tell me why Wikipedia also has the following Article historical revisionism? Do we not have thereby Forking? And (2) what was the purpose of this map to the right of us? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (3) The Web & Google show a publisher of "Historical Revisionism" literature as bein Castle Hill Publishers. Yet we do not even have a page on that. Wikipedia requires notability. Where are the notable sources? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I know that "historical revisionism" is expounded by the Institute for Historical Review. That is a "notable" source, but I do not see references to it in the opening of the article. I have no problem with presenting historical revisionism as the views, theories, dogmas, sciences, theses, or what appropriate term you wish to use. However, it (HR) should not be presented as if it was in anyway a mainstream whatever of historians, or others of the establishment - because we all know that that's not true. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I have found this interesting letter of Noam Chomsky of March 31, 1992, regarding "Historical Revisionism": [5] --Ludvikus (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC) To answer 1, I suggest you read the archives particularly those of talk:Historical revisionism, but in part this is because the word has a different common meaning on different sides of the pond. Do a Google search on revisionist Irving site:uk and you will see what I mean. --PBS (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Answer 2 I have no idea ask User talk:Andreave1977, the person who added it [6], I removed it.[7] Answer 3 see the search I suggested here are a couple from the first 10 returned The Guardian], [BBC] Daily Telegraph that is 3 reliable sources, others may be reliable but I know those are without further investigation. The think is we need an article like this for those who read the British Broadsheets and listen to the BBC. It should not be mixed up with the other article because this common usage in the UK media is a pejorative use of the term. No British legitimate historian would want the BBC to label them as a revisionist because they would not get a seat in their favour restaurant again. I just put in a search for revisionist site:UK in the hope of finding an article to show the other usage in the UK but two article I noticed returned are The Independent and The Times the first is negationist usage the second is by a US based journalist and is using the word revisionist as it is commonly used in the US. It seems to me a similar to the way UK papers often use soccer when talking about football in the US but football for everywhere else when they are discussing association football. --PBS (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I'm getting your drift, Dear Brother Brit! Us Yanks here in the woods remenber our roots. The best to you. I'll be back in a moment or so for a response - but I've got some Burgers frying in the kitchen (no Kidney Pie I'm affraid. Thanks for your prompt response. I'll be back very soon. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I've read one article - regarding David Irving' jail sentence in Vienna (he got 3 years imprisonment) for holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) But I had to start a {{stub}} on Oleg Platonov - an extremely important revisionist on who WP has no article yet!!! --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (1) OK. I'm back. I reviewed all your sources. They are all instances of Journalism articles. Not un-useful - they are informative - but it is to be noted that you did not give us any scholarly book or journal article. (2) Furthermore, all the articles - but one - are about David Irving and holocaust denial. It seems, according to your own sources, that Revisionism is Holocaust Denial as advocated by David Irving. There is nothing else we can say about what Revisionism is besides that. (3) It is certainly interesting that you show us that David Irving has renounced his holocaust denial views as mistaken. It would seem from that that Holocaust Denial and therefore Revisionism is/are Theories which are now viewed as erroneous by its most vocal voice - David Irving. (4) What's is distinct from that is your last External Link which gives us the following individual as an authority: Mark Moyar, a historian, about whom - as you can see - Wikipedia knows nothing. And he deals with the Vietnam War. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC) So lets have an article about Mark Moyar, 3 of whose books are possessed by the [[Library of Congress: [ 1 ] Moyar, Mark, 1971- Phoenix and the birds of prey: the CIA's secret campaign to destroy the Viet Cong / Mark Moyar (1997). [ 2 ] Moyar, Mark, 1971- Triumph forsaken: the Vietnam war, 1954-1965 / Mark Moyar (2006) Electronic Resource. [ 3 ] Moyar, Mark, 1971- Phoenix and the birds of prey : counterinsurgency and counterterrorism in Vietnam / Mark Moyar ; foreword by Harry G. Summers, Jr.; with a new preface and chapter by the author (2007). --Ludvikus (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Here's what the publisher (of #2) has to say about this book (as given by the LOC): Drawing on a wealth of new evidence from all sides, Triumph Forsaken overturns most of the historical orthodoxy on the Vietnam War. Through the analysis of international perceptions and power, it shows that South Vietnam was a vital interest of the United States. The book provides many new insights into the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963 and demonstrates that the coup negated the South Vietnamese government's tremendous, and hitherto unappreciated, military and political gains between 1954 and 1963. After Diem's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson had at his disposal several aggressive policy options that could have enabled South Vietnam to continue the war without a massive US troop infusion, but he ruled out these options because of faulty assumptions and inadequate intelligence, making such an infusion the only means of saving the country.' --Ludvikus (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) The source provide are all from reliable sources as defined in WP:V "and mainstream newspapers." (and the BBC which is also a reliable mainstream broadcaster) I simply selected them --from the first page returned by Google-- to show you that in the UK revisionism often used to mean illegitimate historical revisionism. I used Irving because it is easy to find and simply listed the articles on the first page that were clearly from the BBC and "mainstream newspapers." they were not meant to be a selection. But if you wish to look up more then try googling [japan revisionism site:uk] the very first returned is [8] like to choose which meaning that is? On page two [9] the term is clearly being used with a pejorative meaning. So this article is important and informative so that people can look up both meanings and judge from the context which meaning is being used. We are doing revisionists like Irving (and he does not tend to write about the Holocaust but about other things like the Bombing of Dresden where over which other historians like Evans have dammed his research) a favour if we do not have an article on the pejorative use of the term as it allows them to hide behind the legitimate use of the term. I do not think that they should be combined because they are two related but distinct meanings. As to your placing facts on the introduction. Do you really not know those meanings? --PBS (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your informative reply. Much appreciated. But I think my position has not been clearly made. So I'll try a bit to make it clearer here. As I recollect, there was a usage of "revisionist," as far back as the 1960's, in the USA, designating certain historians, perhaps the New Left historians, those who presented scholarly views that were in opposition to mainstrem views. However, no one would have described such individuals as cranks and crackpots. Some were even attacked as left wingers, but not as utterly unreliable authorities whose works failed to pass any peer review standards of accredited journals. So we should have two articles: (1) One on the much less pejoritive usage (that should be the Main article). (2) The other should be this one which would include the views of such known Revisionists as David Irving, Oleg Platonov, etc. But I do not think it is for us to engage in Original Research in giving our Opinion about what Negationism is, or is about (without any references). I want an exact reference on any summary we make as to what this Revisionism is. We must cite Authorities on that. (3) Newspapers can be used - but I doubt they can help in this regard: If you wanted to know what Einstein or Napoleon were about would you just go to the newspapers? They are useful as sources of information in many ways. But in writing an encyclopedia like WP we are required to use "Secondary Sources" rather than direct experiences of ours. I do not think it proper for you to be merely reading the newspapers in order to figure out what Negationism is - that's what WP policy means by "Original research". To know what the so-called pejorative Revisitionist views in general are, you must find a mainstream recognized scholar, or you can also tell us exactly what a Revisionist says in any of his published books or articles - that is OK too. But it is not for us to make the Synthesis based on the Primary sources. I know the distinction is difficult. But maybe I'm overloading everyone. So I'll take a break. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Dictionaries on "Revisionism FYI thre is no OED entry for "historical revisionism" or "historical revisionist" but the OED does have "Revisionism" "1. A policy first put forward in the 1890s by Edward Bernstein (1850-1932) advocating the introduction of socialism through evolution rather than revolution, in opposition to the orthodox view of Marxists; hence a term of abuse used within the communist world for an interpretation of Marxism which is felt to threaten the canonical policy." "A term used for a revised attitude to some previously accepted political situation, doctrine, or point of view; concr., the name of the policy adopted by a right-wing Zionist group, active during the formative period of the State of Israel; mostly U.S., a movement to revise the accepted versions of American history, esp. those relating to foreign affairs since the war of 1939-45." (first used in 1921) This entry my be of interest: "1965 New Statesman 1 Oct. 486/2 One linguistic difference between American and British historians lies in the frequency with which they use the word ‘revisionism’. It is common currency in Transatlantic seminars and journals, but hardly ever heard in this country. Ibid., ‘Revisionism’ goes on all the time because of disagreement about the moral and political significance of what happened. " OED A. n. revisionist "1.One who advocates or supports revision." (first use 1865) "2 The revisers of the Bible." (first use 1881) OED B n. revisionist "That advocates or supports revision; pertaining to revisionism or revisionists." (first use 1866) and a couple of citations from the 60s and 70s that relate to this page "1969 Amer. N. & Q. Oct. 31/2 It is ‘revisionist’ history in the finest sense, a wholly new interpretation of the sources. ... 1977 Time 30 May 4/3 The recent cluster of ‘revisionist’ books on Nazism, which would soften the frightening teachings of this maniacal movement." --PBS (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC) That's wonderful. I do think it's proper to begin with such sources. Now here's our American Merriam-Webster's: revisionism \ri-vi-zhe-ni-zem\ noun (1903) 1: a movement in revolutionary Marxian socialism favoring an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary spirit 2: advocacy of revision (as of a doctrine or policy or in historical analysis) revisionist \-nist\ noun or adjective (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Thanks again, now lets use these (if they are not there embodied already) in the Main Article. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me that our first task must be how (when, or if) does Revisionism become, or turn into, Historical Revisionism, and/or Historical Revisionism in the sense of Negationism! --Ludvikus (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) The phrase Historical revisionism is used differently by different people. There is no universal usage. It is probably though not exclusively a difference between British English and American English. --PBS (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC) But you need citations for this distinction. Also, is it a WP:neologism? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) And why is the page not Disambiguated? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC) No one is claiming on the page that there is a British American English difference in usage although (as shown above) a quick Google search throws up hundreds of examples. Why do we need citations for the distinction (as it is easily proven with a Google search)? Do you think it is a controversial point? If so why? Further why ask "is it a WP:neologism?" when this issue has already been discussed on this page and examples given? This page is disambiguated, see the discussion talk:Historical revisionism#WP:Disambiguation: Revisionism --PBS (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC) OK, thanks for your view. I think Google is a wonderful tool for doing many useful things. However, it can be abused. First of all, if you look very carefully, you'll find that Google searches return Wikipedia pages. Here's what I mean. Suppose we invent some nonsense say Breging Drugulismly. Now what will happen if you type it into Google and do a search? Google will give you 1 hit - do you get my point? OK. But there's another problem. If you just work with Google, without giving any scholarly reference as well, then what are you doing but Original Research? And I'm say to you that you cannot find a single book thats recognized as scholarly by the community which makes the distinction you wish to make. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC) One more point - so you don't come back and say I gotcha on this nonsensical example. Google has gotten smarter. So you would also have to create a WP Page with this title. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I just realized you had found a wonderful source regarding 1969! That's in the OED. Give me a moment! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. If you do not want to include wikipedia in a search simply add -Wikipedia to the search criteria. --PBS (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Revistionist Historians and/or New Left historians

Extended content

Here's what I think you mean [10]. It's from the The American Historical Association (AHA) ]]. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I think you mean the New left historians: Review: [untitled] Francis L. Loewenheim Reviewed work(s): New Left Diplomatic Histories and Historians: The American Revisionists by Joseph M. Siracusa The Journal of American History, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jun., 1974), pp. 250-251 (review consists of 2 pages) Published by: Organization of American Historians --Ludvikus (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Here a direct quote (a Google find): "As for New Left historians in general, Feis thought that "their books are to be regarded more in the nature of political tracts than a detailed historical ..." I'm quoting exactly. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) And another reference: The New Left and the Revision of American History Willard L. Hogeboom The History Teacher, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Nov., 1968), pp. 51-55 (article consists of 5 pages) Published by: Society for the History of Education --Ludvikus (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC) We need to Disambiguate the New left. Let's please read about the New Left. I think that's what you mean! That is certainly an important group from the '60's and thereafter. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC) More: "The Orthodoxy of Revisionism: Woodrow Wilson and the New Left Fran- Other New Left historians found it equally difficult to offer a genuinely. radical interpretation of :American foreign relations. Revisionists such as ... Search on Google like so: "New left historians" "revisionist" --Ludvikus (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC) "Here's what I think you mean" Here is what who means? --PBS (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

How can an encyclopedia article be considered NPOV when its lede includes a sentence such as:

"Historical revisionism" (also but less often in English "negationism"[1]), as used in this article, describes the process that attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities with a phrase which has a legitimate meaning. (emphasis added)

Might I suggest that everybody read WP:WTA and let's discuss a more neutral way to describe historical revisionism? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I support your suggestion very strongly. I do not know what this article is about, really. You have moved to deal with the trees before the forest, and I defer to you on that Shabazz, and I will give you my support (especially since I've been the one whose been substantially tagging the site with the & "WP:POV"> Let me add that I agree with you on the above 100% (and I hope you are glad about that). So I give you my sincere cooperation. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz have you read the other article Historical revisionism this article is about Irving and people like him who distort history for political motives. See 308 See also Japanese War Crimes By Peter Li. this Daily Telegraph article uses the phrase to describe Irving's work "Although yet to write his most notorious work of historical revisionism, Hitler's War, Irving was already regarded as a Right-wing extremist." Then see the Evans quote in the section "Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists" and follow citation for the quote to the URL in the citation, the sentence immediately before the quote reads "The many examples presented in the present paper demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Irving has repeatedly engaged in the falsification of the historical record." --PBS (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PBS I agree with your characterization of holocaust denial Irving. However, the article is written extremely poorly. Look how we write about Hitler, for example. Also, it should stick to the topic you are discribing, namely, Historical Revisionism a.k.a. Negationism, and not go all over the place into areas which are covered by other articles anyway. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a subset of this illegitimate use of historical revisionism. Irving also wrote many other books about historical subject. Evans proved that he distorted the statistics for the deaths in Dresden for example, that is not holocaust denial that is what is described in the British press as historical revisionism. --PBS (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"However, the article is written extremely poorly" Which do you consider to be the most poorly written section? --PBS (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Philip, I understand what "brand" of revisionism the article is about, I just question the use of terms that seem strong and biased as noted above. (In fact, I don't disagree with the characterization of the historical revisionists, I just question its compliance with the principle of NPOV.) Maybe the same point can be made by using phrases such as "politically motivated" and "generally accepted view of history" (although this may be too broad and may apply to all revisionist historians). An alternative, suggested in WP:WTA#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint, might be to use definitions of this type of historical revisionism written by others and attribute them to their sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your points relate to the issue about specific examples used in this article. With cases like Irving there is little dispute about the use of the term and the linking of its use to those phrases. Also I don't think anyone would disagree with its use for history in the USSR under Stalin. The problem occurs when the phrase is used to describe issues that impinge on a countries collective sense of historical narrative. For example with France, Turkey and Japan, because the issue becomes one like Russian dolls, what is the standard international view may appear as revisionism when published in those countries, but equally those views may appear as historical revisionism outside those countries. The question of whether either of these views are illegitimate historical revisionism is in part political. So I agree with you that in those cases, it was I who rephrased "Yasukuni Shrine has been criticised by people such as Tsuneo Watanabe..." to be in the format you are suggesting. But on as can be seen in the recent edit by WikiSkeptic who has just added a sentence to that paragraph, there is a lot of pressure on this article for the addition of terms that uses weasel words and do not carry a citation. Most of these entries have looooooooong edit wars and in many cases are compromises. It is for this reason that the article has the structure and content that it does. --PBS (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations and templates in the lead

There is no point asking for a citation for summaries of sections that are fully cited in the main body of the article. For example "In some countries historical revisionism (negationism) of certain historical events is a criminal offense" is covered by the section Historical revisionism (negationism)#Law_and_historical_revisionism -- So unless the editor who put it there can give a good reason for it being there I will remove it along with other citations that seem to ignore the advise in Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations. --PBS (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise why what is the purpose of {{refimprove}} what other citations are needed that a {{fact}} does not cover? As for {{Cleanup}} what needs cleaning up? --PBS (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good. Progress. 1st there's no relation between the 1st Footnote & the 1st Opening sentence. Conform the opening paragraph to the citation you give. The footnote talks about the 1900's, etc. By clean it up it is ment that the footnote & the article's opening sentence(s) conform to one another. They do not. You can say what you wish that expresses what these Rivisionsts say. But make the distinctions which scholars in the recognized community make. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As I have explained to you more than once there are two distinct usages of the word. One to describe legitimate as historical revisionism described in the historical revisionism article and the other use of the term to describe research using illegitimate methods to attempt to influence the public's perception of certain historical events. I have removed this edit "15:08, 7 May 2008 Ludvikus ({{fact}} Footnote does not support sweeping statement(s) in opening Para. contrary to appearances)" please explain in detail which part of the sentence is not covered by the source given because I have no idea what you mean by "The footnote talks about the 1900's, etc.". Further I would remind you that this is a lead section and it is meant to be a summary and not overburdened with footnotes. --PBS (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In the above you are merely name dropping.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2008

Denial Revisionism

    The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States
    were written by historians Deborah Lipstadt (1993) and Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2000).
    These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial.
    Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event,
    not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination
    of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence.
    Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a "certain body of irrefutable evidence"
    or a "convergence of evidence" that suggest that an event
    - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21;
    Shermer & Grobman 200:34).
    Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..."
    Ronald J. Berger. Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach, Aldine Transaction, 2002, ISBN 0202306704, p. 154. 

Isn't that what you guys say in Footnote/Reference 1 (--Ludvikus (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC))?

Please stop vandalizing this page, and yet again STOP USING BULLET POINTS on the talk pages. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What is it you are trying to ask Ludvikus? Yes some scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Others particularly the news media in Britain and other scholars do not, hence the need for two articles. I get really confused by your vacillation. You ask a question get an answer and seem to accept it, or at least you do not ask for clarification and then you re-open the same topic in another section demanding that we go through the loop again. For example why did you make this edit [11] if you were not satisfied that there are two meanings to Historical revisionism as we would not need to disambiguate unless there was? --PBS (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your civility, Shearer', I do appreciate it. I am on another matter, and will get back to you here soon. In the mean time, Brit, have a nice night in the wonderful United Kingdom - I hope your Queen it well. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still on another matter. But in the mean time, let me ask you this - what the point of having a DAB page if you don't use it? While I'm away, could you please Tag the page with the {{otheruses}}, and/or ask why it keeps being removed? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at the opening paragraph of our page:

    "Historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past.[1]
    In its legitimate form (see historical revisionism) it is the reexamination of historical facts,
    with an eye towards updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information,
    acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate.[1]"

Can you two deicated editors please give us the exact page number where in the refernced matterial you cite you get this sweeping generalization and distinction? I fail to see the relationship between the above 2 blocks of text. Three name, and three books - one one page number - p. 154. What exactly does it say. Can you quote it rather than paraphrase it? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See the bullet point in Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines "While there is no specific prohibition against it, ..."

It is a quote from page 154 of book: "Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach" by Ronald J. Berger, published by Aldine Transaction in 2002. --PBS (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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.

The result of the debate was consensus against the proposed move --PBS (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism) → Negationism — synonym for disambiguated term; move to more appropriate name per WP:D —B.Wind (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose Negationism is almost never used in English, so to change this name to negationism would be to create a neologism in English. This page was originally under the name "historical revisionism (political)" but the extension "(political)" caused problems -- as can be seen on the archives of this talk page -- and negationism although not widely used was a convenient disambiguator extension for this page as an alternative to the original. --PBS (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are being contradicted by the article itself. If this is indeed the case, then the proper action would be to either rename the article to reflect this, merge it into Historical revisionism, or delete it. Let's see if there is a consensus for or against the proposed move first. B.Wind (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose From what I can tell, B.Wind was brought into this discussion as the result of a direct solicitation by an editor whose primary concern is the inclusion of Holocaust Denial under the more legitimate-sounding umbrella of Historical Revisionism. I say skip the interim step proposed by B.Wind and get directly to the main issue. No way, no how is Holocaust Denial a part of the very legitimate and necessary process of historical revisionism. I do not suggest that either B.Wind or Ludvikus are Holocaust Deniers. What I do suggest is that Ludvikus is totally unaware of what historical revisionism means within the context of professional American historians, and that B.Wind has jumped into a situation in which he is not totally aware of the actual issues in play. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, I was not "brought in" by any editor, but was trying to clean up a mess that posed as a redirect in WP:RfD. I have not formed an opinion one way or another about this particular article (whether it should even be an article on its own, merged with the similarly-named article without disambiguation, or deleted outright - and I have just gone through a similar "wrenching" with Magog and Gog). Acknowledging how little I know about this, I asked for input from a neutral expert in something that can be political in nature... and noticed as the dab page is deleted through AfD that if this article is to be saved, it must be under a different name. But if you wish to delete this, who am I to stop the process? B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tom. This stems from, yet again, another ill-informed attempt by Ludvikus to add what amounts to confusion into the process. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as 'negationism' is too vague and rarely used in English. 'Historical negationsim' might be appropriate as a sub-article of historical revisionism specifying politically (or otherwise non-scientific) motivated revisions. The Myotis (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Merge All along I've felt that Merge with Historical Revisionism was the best option. From the very beginning I've not seen any difference between the two articles, contrary to what about three (3) editors maintained. As far as I'm concerned, the best thing to do is what the editor above just proposed. More particularly, I wholeheartedly agree with User:B.Wind --Ludvikus (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: It is common knowledge - or should be - that the common name of this "horse" is "Historical Revisionism." --Ludvikus (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Negationism is almost never used in English, so to change this name to negationism would be to create a neologism in English. This page was originally under the name "historical revisionism (political)" but the extension "(political)" caused problems -- as can be seen on the archives of this talk page -- and negationism although not widely used was a convenient disambiguator extension for this page as an alternative to the original. --PBS (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are being contradicted by the article itself. If this is indeed the case, then the proper action would be to either rename the article to reflect this, merge it into Historical revisionism, or delete it. Let's see if there is a consensus for or against the proposed move first. B.Wind (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To use two articles to describe two different meanings for a phrase or word in English on Wikipedia is quite common see for example chaff, and chaff (radar countermeasure). I think it is important that we have two articles on "historical revisionism" so that there is no confusion in the minds of the reader that we are describing two different usages of the phrase. --PBS (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if I were to conceed this last point of yours you now pose the problem of which of our articles to call by the two words in "Historical revisionism". The authority of the very article, McPherson, titles his article Revisionist Historians. So what justification is there in making that which commonly known by the two words into something so awkward as this three word effective neologism? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look a little further down in the McPherson article where he makes the very distinctions that we are talking about. From that article;

"For many of us, the term "revisionist historians" recalls distasteful memories from the 1970s of Holocaust deniers who called themselves "revisionists." One hopes that in resorting to this phrase now, the president's associates are not seeking to falsely and maliciously link present-day critics of the administration to those who misrepresented the past for nefarious ends. But even if they are not guilty of such an insinuation, by misusing the term "revisionist historians" to derisively deflect criticism, Condoleeza Rice and her cohorts are denigrating a legitimate and essential activity of historians." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I know it's tricky, but if you read it carefully - with knowledge of the times - what McPherson is saying is that Revisionist Historians (the good guys) are not the same as the Historical Revisionists (the bad guys - the subscribers to "Historical Revisionism"). So he's criticising our President Bush for pulling a fast one. McPherson is not using the phrase "historical revisionist" or "historical revisionism". these are the labels for the 1970's bad guys. The title of McPherson's article (if you look at the top) is Revisionist Historians. So the quote you are repeating here supports the exact OPPOSITE of the point you are trying to make. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• PS(1): The "Revisionist historians were the New Left historians who were highly infkuenced by Karl Marx - but they were not Communists of the kind that dwelt in the Soviet Union. But they were extremely scholarly. They were of different views than the establishment colleagues - but no one doubted their credentials. The "worst" you could say about them was that they were leftists and that they took Karl Marx to seriously. Gabriel Kolko is one of these and we have an article on him. Another William Carlos Williams.
• PS(2):

Here a quote from our own article on him where "revisionist" is used (--Ludvikus (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)):

Later, in The Anatomy of a War (1985), Kolko became, along with writers such as George Kahin,

a leading writer of the postrevisionist, or synthesis, school, which suggested,

among other things, that the revisionist school was wrong

in speculating that the United States could have won the war.

Actually it’s not “tricky” at all -- the McPherson article is very clearly written and nowhere does he make the non-existent distinction between “Revisionist Historians” and “Historical Revisionists” that you seem to find so crucial. Simply switching the word order and using the adjectival version rather than the noun form has little grammatical significance and even less analytical or intellectual significance. As far as your use of the phrasing “but if you read it carefully - with knowledge of the times”, your condescension is noted, but it is totally out of place and inappropriate. I have added a half dozen sourced, in-context quotes to the Historical revisionism article while you have added nothing of substance -- spending your time with tags and endless merger and renaming proposals. I got my sources from books I happen to own and have read -- your background, judged by your contributions to these discussions, seems to involve little more than your recent Google search history. You have not demonstrated any familiarity, let alone mastery, of the process of revisionism within the American historical profession. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)