Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Article scope

It seems that the article started to accumulate a good deal of WP:SYNTH and other dubious original research. There are many kinds of distorted historiography. Negationism is a specific type of it: outright denial of something happen with the help of fraudulent means.

  • Deemphasizing something, e.g., by omission from school textbooks is not negationism.
  • Claiming that something happened which in fact did not happen in not negationism.
  • Agreeing that something happen, but giving a different explanation why it happened is not negationism.
  • etc.

In summary, this article must keep only notable cases of distorted historiography which:

  • Are unambiguously about denying something happened
  • Or, in ambiguous cases, described in reliable sources as a case of negationism (or a recognizable synonym thereof).

With this in mind, I am going to review the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So then do we need new articles for, say, the Asian trend of describing the old dynasty as evil or corrupt and the new dynasty as good or virtuous? I thought that fell under "historical revisionism" in a negative sense? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
When doing a scholarly work (even in wikipedia :-), you don't just "think"; you have double-check your opinion by finding a scholar who characterizes this fact by this term (or its recognized synonym or translation). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
And BTW it is not an exclusively Asian trend. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I have sources that say it is notable as an East Asian trend and calls it "historical revisionism", they just don't use the term "negationism" but note that some of the information is purposefully falsified. If it's not "negationism", then what is it? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
<sigh> Our article is a mess. I have no time to carefully review the sources. In any case I fail to understand your problem. If it is called "historical revisionism" (in negative sense), then it belongs to this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename-2

Had we for this page a clearer title, and a subsequent clearer defined content, we would not waste our time in edit wars like that one about the entry image by Jacob de Wit. This page should be limited to the instances were a distinctly defined entity, individual person , association or government, negates one or more historical events for which an unequivocal documentation is available. In this case Negationism should be the title, as already chosen by the French, German, Korean, Italian, Dutch Japanese and Serbian Wikipedia. A slightly larger approach may be preferred, and in this case the title could be Historical falsification (Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia). But, please, stay away from titles like Illegitimate historical revisionism or historical revisionism (illegitimate), as well as the current one, which trigger a constant uneasiness about what to include and what not. Carlotm (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We use the term which is commonly used in English language, not Dutch, Korean, nor Khoisan. In English "revisionism" is used in two senses. This talk page had long discussions already about the article title. Please review talk page archives before going any further. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Negationism is a derivative form from the very English word negation. Please try not to be too snobbish and ridicule. Everybody, in 2015, understand very well what negationism means. That this question was considered many times in the past does not denote it is settled for ever. I, at least, am of the opinion that the current title should be scrapped right away; to use a term with two so different and opposed meanings is too dangerous and should be avoided. To persevere with it may slip to objectively help the negationist archipelago who like to meddle with this kind of ambiguity and to appear as real historians legitimately involved in some revisionist work. In the same time the current title seems to draw any kind of different arguments and notices, and the article is growing and growing with a confused pace. Carlotm (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat, and expand, point by point.
  • re: does not denote it is settled for ever. Sure thing, consensus may change. But... Please review talk archives and tell us which arguments are no longer applicable, so that we can restart the discussion without repeating everything already said all over again.
  • We (in wikipedia) use English language, not Dutch, Korean, nor Khoisan: their usage is good to know but irrelevant in English-language wikipedia. And there is nothing snobbish in this: wikipedias in every language have widely different rules, independent of each other. We have our rules to follow I am inviting you to.
  • re: Negationism is a derivative form from the very English word negation . FYI in my last edits I removed the claim that it was derived from French; so we are almost on the same page here.
  • re: should be scrapped right away - FYI I am uneasy with this title either. But we don't scrap anything long-standing in haste. We have a standard procedure for renaming an article: Wikipedia:Requested moves. A common guideline is to wait at least a week for other opinions: many people have a real life too.
  • If you want to rename an article with a long-standing title, you have to prove, using reliable references to support your opinion, that a new title is more appropriate.
  • re: the article is growing and growing - Same here, colleague. You are very welcome to join me in its cleanup, as I explained in #Article scope talk section. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to make a preamble here about Wiki rules and Wiki consensus. Rules. I tend not to give a big shot at them because quite often anything, from even to odd, may be found there; that is, others will have reasons to confute your choice anyhow. It happened here too. Consensus. I have the feeling that the number of those who, along the last decade, were favorable to a change in the direction of negationism, is much higher than that of the disagreers, born always from the same limited stock. It's just a feeling, and with it goes the feeling that few are keeping things immobile, and changes are seen as pointless intrusions. Unfortunately all this discourages participation. Now to your questions, Staszek Lem. People may be worried not to find the word negationism in English dictionaries; I am not. Languages are living creatures: surely there was a time when a pizza restaurant could be found in a British street but not in an English dictionary. I doubt people were then talking about round, crunchy (or soft) and oily bread with topping of different kinds. Let dictionaries make their job, which is to record neologisms, not to solicit them, and encyclopedias their, which is to expound arguments in the clearest way, especially on titles, and especially when it comes to an English-written encyclopedia. English is the lingua franca of our times and we have the responsibility to be understandable and unambiguous to a big lot of different people. That's the reason for scrapping as soon as possible the current title which hung in the air for so long a time. Not in haste, I would rather say finally. It's my obligation to wait for inputs nevertheless. The appropriateness of negationism, or the like, comes also from the current title itself, which, with its misleading frills (Historical revisionism) and its explanatory appendix (negationism), cries aloud for the legitimization of the latter. That's a boon per se. As for the cleanup, it's always worth to start from the head than from the tail. So, let's focus on the title. Carlotm (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a feeling that you got it upside down about wikipedia. It in not a job of wikipedia to promote terminology wikipedians think "correct". We have to use terminology which is currently in preferred use, no matter how long opinion pieces you write. So, for the 'mpth time, if you want to change article title, please follow wikipedia procedures for this, as I explained above. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My only concern is that we need an understandable and unambiguous title; the current one is not. Carlotm (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. But we also need it to be in common usage. BTW, Why do you think the current title (Historical revisionism (negationism)) is ambiguous? It is of same type as, say, "Athens (typeface)". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Mi conviction is that there are too many English speaking people who don't easily recognize the derogatory sense of historical revisionism, and, when they do, they tend to associate it to the sense attributed to revisionism for the infighting inside the political left; for them the association of historical revisionism with negationism is quite unusual and new. So, those who are reasoning in the way you do, are creating a new sens for historical revisionism, willing to avert an uncommon usage of a word (negationism), which, by the way, is rather common anyway. That's quite contradictory. Isn't it? Carlotm (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: The term negationism is from the French usage, that negation is an English word is besides the point. It was the French who started to use the term negationism for genocide deniers.

@Carlotm in British English the common meaning of revisionist outside the history profession is this negative meaning, because it was successfully used by people like Irving and the use of it in the new-media news-media tends to restrict its use for people like Irving.

This is unfortunate but it is a similar linguistic shift to that which happened with the computer term hacker. Among computer professionals hacker continues to be used in it old meaning, but in the press and among the public it only means someone who tries to break into computer systems illegally.

A good example of this is Der Brand: Deutschland im Bombenkrieg … written by Jörg Friedrich. Friedrich's book was controversial and was damned by a large section of the British media. Friedrich acknowledges that he is a revisionist historian, but is probably using the term with its professional historian connotations (his book was looking at the bombing of Germany from the point of view the victims while acknowledging that two wrongs do not make a right). But even the Guardian used his acknowledgement to imply that he was similar to David Irving, "Friedrich admits he is a revisionist"[1] -- admits is like admitting to a moral crime as in "he admits he is a paedophile" (admits is not a word used for the revisionists of the English Civil War (who are seen as respectable historians)).

-- PBS (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

PBS, your points seem to me kind of amiss; our duty is to be clear, understandable and unambiguous. That a word is a neologism, or it originates from a use by another language, does not speak much to me; I would say it's totally irrelevant.
The use in the new-media of revisionism with a derogatory sense is a British thing, quite restricted. So you want to avoid the use of negationism for linguistic reasons, and in the same time you pretend to impose "a linguistic novelty", the linguistic shift to other English speaking peoples and all the others for whom English is a lingua franca. Above all this, remark the ambiguity in the use of the term revisionism that yourself acknowledge when stating that «Friedrich acknowledges that he is a revisionist historian, but is probably using the term with its professional historian connotations». What "probably"? We need to give our readers something better than that. That's why we need to change the title. Carlotm (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Colleague, please let me remind you that wikipedia has certain policies. Yes, "our duty is to be clear, understandable and unambiguous". But we actieve our duty by analysing what is reported in reliable sources, not on something some wikipedia feels strongly about. Therefore please don't write essays about correct English (tl;dr); instead try to prove your point by references to authorities, the only acceptable way to change content in wikipedia, especially in case of disagreements. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Carlotm sorry that was a typo by me "new-media" should have been "news-media". The UK press makes up a large part of the international contribution to English usage, and the meaning use of it as a label for the illegitimate revisionists is common place eg: "British revisionist historian David Irving is being held in Austria under laws against denying the Holocaust." Austria holds 'Holocaust denier', BBC (17 November 2005), published several year after an English judge had labelled him a holocaust denier -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem, show me a relaiable source, all British ones apart, where revisionism is used as a synonym of negationism.
PBS, your citation comes from BBC News. What more British than that? Oh, you do mean that its colonial power endures to these days, at least linguistically! I see. I see also that you are skipping a response to my earlier questioning, which was not about your obvious typo. Carlotm (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Carlotm:, What is your definition of negationism? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem, it's in the second sentence of my first writing, up there. Carlotm (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I.e. basically agrees what our article says "which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism". In other words, our article covers any pseudo-scholarly distortions of history, inlcuding negationism. In other words "negationism" is not a synonym to whatever the article discusses. Now, after your answer, I can answer mine: please do Google Books search for "revisionism + Holocaust" and you will readily find plenty of cases when Holocaust denial is called "revisionism" by mainstream historians whatever language they speak. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem, following your suggestion and sipping the content of the first five pages, I found a gang of sites and blogs of negationist organizations and individuals: the Institute for Historical Review, the "Mad Revisionist", the Middle East Forum website, the Adelaide Institute ("There is no evidence to prove that the gas chambers existed" they wrote), or the late David McCalden, among others. These sites do an abundant use of the term revisionism. They are all well known for their endeavour to hide under the umbrella of regular historical studies and the associated processes of revisiting and updating. Other sites who counteracted negationism beliefs, were using the more inscribed sens of "Holocaust revisionism", often marking it as the starting point of a process that led their proponents to a more radical negationist position, thus and implicitly making a distinction between the two terms. In any way I was unable to find any mainstream historians who attributed to the term revisionism the full negative sens of negationism. Carlotm (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
re: who attributed to the term revisionism the full negative sens of negationism. - you got it upside down: negationism is a special case of (bad) revisionism, not vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You, Staszek Lem, wrote «when Holocaust denial is called "revisionism"». Anyway the current title implies the same equivalence too. Carlotm (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Carlotm, I do not agree with your arguments. Please read WP:NOTNEO and consider if your comment "; our duty is to be clear, understandable and unambiguous. That a word is a neologism, or it originates from a use by another language, does not speak much to me; I would say it's totally irrelevant." is inside or outside of policy?. Also please consider the implications of this letter Japan, Korea and Textbook History published in the NYT in 2014. Presumably the "consul general of South Korea" (in New York?) is following what he believes to be common usage when he writes "it is quite inappropriate to compare South Korea’s textbook publishing procedures with Japan’s historical revisionism. ... Japan has yet to show sincere remorse for its crimes against humanity committed during colonial rule and the wars of aggression of its imperial era". Now it may be that consul general of South Korea has been influenced by the British media but that would not be surprising if it were so as the news media based in London (for example The Economist and the Financial Times have a large and influential international readership). -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

All said, I am unable to fully understand why you don't see the inherent inequality in meaning of the two terms in the current title, thus willing to keep this perfect title we currently have. Carlotm (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Textbooks

I removed this subsection from "Textbooks" as this is off topic for the section. The statement is about the commission, not about textbooks. It has also been challenged:

Russia

References

  1. ^ Osborn, Andrew (21 May 2009). "Medvedev Creates History Commission". The Wall Street Journal.
  2. ^ Matthews, Owen (20 August 2007). "Back To the U.S.S.R.; By pushing a patriotic view of history and the humanities, the Kremlin is reshaping the Russian mind". Newsweek.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It looked like an absolute mess as it was. Probably for the best this way. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical deletion

Please see a related discussion about a likely fork term at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historical_deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Historical negationism. Legitimate concerns by PBS, Staszek Lem and K.e.coffman notwithstanding, I find the arguments for move to be slightly prevailing, so I'll try to address them briefly: No such user (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • There is an unfortunate real-life ambiguity between neutral historical revisionism and the subject of this article, denialism/negationism, also most commonly referred to as "historical revisionism".
  • Both in this debate and in previous ones, multiple editors found the title "Historical revisionism (negationism)" as seriously lacking, being 1) unclear 2) contrary to our usual disambiguating principles – we don't use (near-)synonyms for distinction...
  • ...instead, WP:NATURAL stipulates Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names., where "negationism" purportedly qualifies.
  • PBS objects to "negationism" as a WP:NEO, but there is evidence that the word has been taking up in English, as the ngram and book searches below demonstrate. It may not be prevalent, but is hardly "obscure or made-up" and its meaning is self-evident. Besides, it has been used as the disambiguator so far.
  • Staszek Lem's objections over scope creep were noted, but they cannot be solved by choice of one title over another anyway, particularly as the scope of "historical revisionism" as defined now has been questioned, above.
  • While "negationism" is more often used without a qualifier, WP:PRECISE concerns below were sufficient to select Historical negationism as the title.

Historical revisionism (negationism) → negationism or Historical negationism – this redirects here already but it's the proper term for what this actually is, a sub-group of revisionism which is negating, so why put the main title in parenthesis? Seems like obvious POV-pushing to imply all revisionism is negationism. Ranze (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons given above. But the proposer's thoughts regarding POV-pushing appear to be wrong. The move log suggests this title was chosen to differentiate it from the other types of revisionism described at historical revisionism. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wonder if Historical negationism wouldn't be better for clarity. Poeticbent talk 04:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I like this idea, the word negationism could be used in contexts outside of history. Ranze (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's certainly not POV-pushing, but support. I also like Poeticbent's idea. GABgab 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There have been numerous discussion; please see talk archives, and this very talk page, too. One cannot move page without providing solid argument that the new title is better and disproving the arguments that the new title is wrong. While I agree that the title currently is not the best possible, my major argument is that "negationism" is only one of cases of illegitimate historical revisionism, therefore the renaming will unduly change the article scope. Two other major trends are (2) distorting/misrepresenting facts and (3) inventing new theories and using illegitimate/faulty argumentation in their support. My favorite for the latter case is Anatoly_Fomenko#Historical_revisionism. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree illegitimate forms exist outside negation but they don't belong on a page with negation anywhere in title, whether in front or parentheisized at end. Perhaps illegitimate historical revisionism or similar could list negation is I as the worst kind and then list whatever names might exist for other types? Ranze (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historical negationism – Spontaneously I would have supported the shorter Negationism but there are arguments in the talk archives that this word can be ambiguous when used alone in English (it is crystal clear in French). However the current title is unwieldy and very confusing, as it can be interpreted as "there are negationist views in historical revisionism" or "negationism is synonymous with historical revisionism", so that both sides can feel offended or misrepresented. We can make it a bit more WP:CONCISE while remaining WP:PRECISE with Historical negationism. This particular variant was suggested in previous discussions as well and received significant support, despite never being proposed directly. Maybe this can bring consensus? — JFG talk 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historical negationism after positive feedback. Negationism alone (as observed by Staszek Lem already) is not going to cut it in case the request goes through. Poeticbent talk 03:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Negationism, because that's what it is.. Carlotm (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Negationism will redirect to the more WP:PRECISE title Historical negationism, so there's no denying that "that's what it is" and at the same time readers will be better educated about the nuances of this topic. Much better than current situation where Negationism redirects to Historical revisionism covering lots of things which are not negationism. — JFG talk 06:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@JFG How do you think Negationism differs from Historical negationism as you must if you think the latter is more precise than the former? Also what do you think Negationism means and how does that differ from the illegitimate use of Historical revisionism? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Historical revisionism continues to be used in literature, while I've not really come across instances of "negationism" while researching Waffen-SS historical revisionism for the HIAG article. See for example, this sample section Revisionism: We can change history together from In the Tracks of Breivik: Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe]. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree on the neologism rationale. See, for example, the book description of Past in the making: historical revisionism in Central Europe after 1989: "Historical revisionism, far from being restricted to small groups of 'negationists, ' has galvanized debates in the realm of recent history. The studies in this book range from general accounts of the background of recent historical revisionism to focused analyses of particular debates or social-cultural phenomena in individual Central European countries..." (Note that "negationists" is used in quotation marks). Link to the full description. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term Historical negationism is in common use therefore it is not a neologism. It can be found in over a hundred different books.[2] Poeticbent talk 03:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Poeticbent did you look at the books returned by your search? In fact far from showing it is a common term used in hundreds of different books you search returned precisely 37 books and not all of them reliable in this context (take for example the 34th book in the list as an extreme example Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II "This is volume two of a two-volume study of a war and moon god religion that was based on the Mideast moon god religion of Sin.")-- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @PBS: I think you refer to this part right?
    "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."
  • "against policy" is sorta strong when it is merely a "it is preferable" statement supporting the objection. Also: if you look below I cited a 2002 book using "historical negationism" and by comparison "Wikipedia" was coined in 2001, and Grindr in 2009. Ranze (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Andy M. Wang User:Ranze you ask "so why put the main title in parenthesis?". Read the talk archives as they explain why I added negationism as a disambiguator. It is not the main title (never was), but just an alternative to Historical revisionism (political) that caused even more confusion than negationism does. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    @PBS: It was Ranze who asked that in the original request. I simply procedurally relisted the discussion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry my mistake (more hast less speed!). I have struck you name through. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per User:GeneralizationsAreBad. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I like historical negationism better now, switching my vote to this consensus. Ranze (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Ranze It is not a matter of what you like but a matter of usage in reliable sources (see WP:AT).
    1. What are the sources you are proposing for the change in name?
    2. This article scope is much wider than the French meaning of Negationism. For example if this name change were to take place where would you propose placing the information about the Soviet Union or Japan?
    -- PBS (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historical negationism, as more WP:CONCISE than the original name, because "... (negationism)" is an inversion of how we do WP:DAB, and because "negationism" by itself is ambiguous (fails WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion

@PBS: this ["historical negationism"] was the suggestion of other editors I was going along with so I figured they might have some. I was led to believe that the term negationism itself might apply to other issues besides that of history although I don't understand what yet. I guess if we can't confirm any non-historical "negationism" then prefixing the term with "historical" would not be necessary.

I notice in the body of this article terms like "historical negation" and "historical negationist" and "historical negationism" are used in the "Purposes" section. This led me to think sources supported this kind of phrasing.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I can see a lot of sources which use this full phrase. Enough to at least qualify it for WP:NATDAB even if "negationism" in isolation is more frequent, if we need to disambiguate to some other non-historical form. Example:

Yeʼor, Bat (2002). Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press.
  • page 10 Historical Negationism and the Andalusian Myth 316
  • page 23 The contemporary historical negationism in India, with the collusion of Hindu politicians, is discussed in detail by Koenraad Elst in his book on this subject.
  • page 310 This historical negationism, inherent in the Islamic doctrine which gives Islam temporal precedence over Judaism and Christianity, disturbs tehe religious identification of the Christian dhimmis and of the European and Arab Christian

That's just picking one, can cite others if there's an issue with it in particular supporting the existence of the phrase for at least 14 years. Ranze (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also re: PBS's concerns – How are the Soviet and Japanese cases not covered by "historical negationism"? They seem to be qualify for both words. That said, I do no wonder whether Historical denialism might not be a better title, given that the prominent case for most readers his Holocaust denialism (we have that article at Holocaust denial for some reason, which sounds like an article on a particular denial of the Holocaust, rather than the actual organized "ism" to deny that the Holocaust occurred, but maybe I'm splitting hairs).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The change of name does not address the fact that negationism is a neologism. Ranze you says it is common, but the search by Poeticbent returned 37 books (check out the 3rd page returned). This is a very small sample. If one searches in the UK domain using David Irving to make the search return only illegitimate historical revisionism the the numbers returned are telling:

The term illegitimate "historical revisionism" is far more common than "historical negationism" when associated with Irving, by all searches.

User:SMcCandlish Falsification of history can happen both ways, it is not just denialism. Take for example David Irving's book The Destruction of Dresden for about a quarter of a century his book was widely read treated as accurate history by the general public. But in it he falsified the reports on the number of dead, and despite numerous editions he has not rectified the numbers. In his case it may be that he did this to try to imply that the Holocaust while bad was not uniquely so and that the Western Allies also committed mass murder. However he may have been motivated by pecuniary returns. A popular history book about a well known and written about subject, only tends to make the best seller lists if it contains controversial facts or opinions. Many charlatans, who have later been shown to be so, have used this technique to make money, and are often tempted be less than an objective historian while cashing in. Another example is the use of history in propaganda, where a national myth is built up to justify contemporary regimes, or political systems. So while historical negationism is a subset of illegitimate historical revisionism, it is only a subset. We had an article called Negationism which was collapsed into this one in February 2006‎ and I do not consider it necessary to fork them into two articles. -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: Right, but if we already have an article at Historical revisionism and would now have one at Historical negationism instead of the present odd title, what's not covered by one or the other? It's this just a split clean-up job? I feel like I must be missing something obvious.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hence the reason for the dab extension Historical revisionism is the legitimate change in an historical paradime, see for example English Civil War#Historiography and explanations. This confusion between legitimate historical revisionism and illegitimate historical revisionism, is often confusing both for the layman and the professional historian. Hence the reason why Some British tabloids jumped on Jörg Friedrich statement that he was a revisionist historian. He presumably meant that his book on the WWII bombing of Germany was a legitimate attempt to overthrow the accepted view, while the British press used it to tar him with the same brush as Irving (see for example Germany's forgotten victims, The Guardian, 2003). -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about Ferdinand Marcos Burial to justify Martial Law?

Can Marcos Loyalists make historical negationism about atrocities of Marcos and Martial Law? 124.106.143.54 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source identifying this incident as an example of historical negationism? Thanks, GABgab 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Historical negationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Historical negationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit by an editor citing his knowledge of Lochlainn Seabrook's work

The text added by WarricktheGreat (talk · contribs) was completely unsourced and clearly contentious/dubious. The edit'rs edit summary was " I have been trained in the History of the War Between the States for several decades. I have taken world renown Professor Davis course for two years. I have also consulted with Lochlainn Seabrook and have studied numerous f.." If he meant William C. Davis (historian) I doubt very much that Davis taught that. However, Lochlainn Seabrook almost certainly does. Seabrook publishes his nonsense through his own press, Sea Raven Presssee this blog] and wants to convince people there was no real slavery in the South in his book Slavery 101.[3] He seems to be a polymath, having discovered the secret teachings of Jesus[4] and evidently an experts on aliens and UFOs -did you know that “If one day your car, TV, lights, computer or phone shut off for no reason, there may be a UFO in your area.”?[5] And he's edited The Hormesis Effect: The Miraculous Healing Power of Radioactive Stones.[6]. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Historical negationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Damnatio_memoriae#Similar_practices_in_other_societies

Many examples listed there are not really related to the Roman concept, and should be merged here. Further, this article can probably use a section in examples on Damnatio_memoriae. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It might be OK to merge them, as long as these two concepts are not improperly conflated. As far as I know, damnatio memoriae is different from other forms of historical negationism because it usually involves the destruction of historical records and artifacts. Jarble (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose merge, as Historical negationism is a long page and Damnatio memoriae, while admittedly a subset of this topic, seems to be notable and sufficiently distinct to warrant separate treatment. The pages should, however, be linked. I also note that the merge template on Damnatio memoriae seems to have been removed (can't find the relevant edit), which suggests that there is some silent disapproval. Klbrain (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Closed, as no consensus (above), but, more importantly, the section named in the merge doesn't exist.
Resolved
Klbrain (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

a little nitpick (no internet coverage in 1989)

the tiananmen massacre part talks about "soon after, the news and internet coverage blah blah". there was no internet coverage in 1989! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.134.145 (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The claim seems to be about current censorship, but that section seems to also include original research. It needs a source that discusses the current censorship rather than pointing at a search result which purportedly lacks any mention. —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Why does historical revisionism redirect here?

Can someone explain in simple words why historical revisionism redirect here? Isn't the term revisionism parent with the term revision? And why would revision necessarily imply negation or denial of anything? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Historical negationism[1][2] or denialism is an illegitimate distortion of the historical record. Am I the only one who would dispute the factual accuracy and neutrality of this article? Are NPOV rules relative to certain set of articles? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yahya Talatin:, Historical revisionism is a separate article, it does not redirect here. You'll need to be more specific about any problems you have with this article. Doug Weller talk 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, you're right... I was redirected when searching the term on google, seems that it was Historical revisionism (negationism) and not Historical revisionism :). As for problems with the article, are you serious?
One example, I’d take the case of NAZI burning of books. The same rational as the one motivating the destruction of artworks, the rational behind those acts can be found somewhere else, but never, never in books pertaining to the events of WWII. Why NAZI Germany destroyed some paintings and not others? They specifically targeted works which they believe the value was mostly standing on their authors reputation… variable criteria. Everyone has someday encountered (human behaviors are generalizable in human languages, not some elitist constructs) a said masterpiece in his life which he thinks that if the author wasn’t known, you’d believe a kid painted it. Events of the extent of WWI or WWII just don’t happen irrationally out of the blue (like all the events listed here)… if Wikipedia does not endorse cultural bias, it should accept a decentralized knowledge, or else it will suffer from the same systematic bias institutionalized knowledge suffers from. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This concept was widely called 'historical revisionism' until the past generation or less. Since historical revisionism has always had a legitimate function and component, it is useful to have a newer term become widespread. It is especially useful that this article cites the new term's origins in 1987 and its author, although I don't think this term became widespread until much more recently. I can see why there would need to be a lingering connection between the two concepts, as long as the distinction is made clear. Random noter (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not do badly with NPOV -- it cites a wide array of solid cases and lays important emphasis on things like document and evidence manipulation, outright denial of evidenced facts and events and so on-- but one can see considerable POV involved at the uppermost, conceptual level.

In particular, the paragraph under Ideological influence:

"The principal functions of negationist history are the abilities to control ideological influence and to control political influence. In "History Men Battle over Britain's Future", Michael d’Ancona said that historical negationists "seem to have been given a collective task in [a] nation's cultural development, the full significance of which is emerging only now: To redefine [national] status in a changing world".[11] History is a social resource that contributes to shaping national identity, culture, and the public memory. Through the study of history, people are imbued with a particular cultural identity; therefore, by negatively revising history, the negationist can craft a specific, ideological identity. Because historians are credited as people who single-mindedly pursue truth, by way of fact, negationist historians capitalize on the historian's professional credibility, and present their pseudohistory as true scholarship.[12] By adding a measure of credibility to the work of revised history, the ideas of the negationist historian are more readily accepted in the public mind.[12] As such, professional historians recognize the revisionist practice of historical negationism as the work of "truth-seekers" finding different truths in the historical record to fit their political, social, and ideological contexts.[13]"

It's actually pretty good. It's just that d'Ancona's way of expressing this set of ideas includes things like "negatively revising history". "Positively" revising history would have the same distorting or at least re-evaluating effect, and is actually part of what this article already covers.

Similarly, I actually find it hard to think of any aspect of shaping present-day human identities that does not involve mining for a useable past, or emphasising one thing over another as more or less important. All historiographical traditions are conscious of that and have to both guard against overkill and be aware of their own biases.

All of which is not at all the same thing as denying the existence of well known events, or of falsifying documents. Even downgrading the importance of some elements of an event versus others is not the same thing as that.

This is a difficult thing to unpack. I may try to return at some point. Random noter (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Historical Negationism in India

Hi all, just went through some of the archived talk pages, and did find some unresolved old issues on Historical Negationism in India. As in this time gap, there are many sources on this issue which can be used. Can we build some consensus on adding a section on this topic? Santoshdts (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This article generalizes from the case of David Irving without bothering to justify it

"... illegitimate historical revisionism may use techniques inadmissible in proper historical discourse, such as presenting known forged documents as genuine, inventing ingenious but implausible reasons for distrusting genuine documents, attributing conclusions to books and sources that report the opposite, manipulating statistical series to support the given point of view, and deliberately mistranslating texts."

When I check the source of that sweeping claim, I find that it is Richard Evans' polemic against David Irving. Apart from the name of Ernst Zuendel appearing in a linked article, Irving seems to be the only person prominently associated with skepticism about the Holocaust that is even mentioned. Robert Faurisson, Theodore O'Keefe, Germar Rudolf, Paul Rassinier, Fred Leuchter, Fritz Berg -- not mentioned at all. The article seems to take David Irving as the symbol for all that calls itself Holocaust Revisionism, and to attack the entire movement in his person. This is not in any way valid. Neither Irving nor the others that I mentioned would agree that he is a typical representative of that cause.

In fact David Irving is sui generis. If Richard Evans has demonstrated that David Irving falsifies sources, it proves noting about the larger category that this article impugns. You could have learned about David Irving's untrustworthiness by reading CODOH, because he has been criticized there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk • contribs) 00:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • That's because Evans is a WP:RS, CODOH is certainly not. buidhe 01:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert of alphabetical sorting

@Buidhe: Hello, referring to your revert of the alphabetical sorting of the article, I agree it can also be sorted chronologically. However, there are no dates given in any of the section headings, making it impossible for a reader to know that it is sorted chronologically and without which it just looks like a random sort. If you could add the dates so that it is more easier to understand, it would be good. Thanks,Siddsg (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

ethno-racial imperialism by Russians

According to Klaus Mehnert, the Soviets attempt to control academic historiography (the writing of history by academic historians) to promote ideological and ethno-racial imperialism by Russians

While the statement is basically true, although phrase in a skewed way in a Cold War era style, it has no relation to negationism and must be removed. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In general, the Soviet section is rather sloppy and unfocused. It should be clearly split into two parts: background and examples of negationism. And background part does not need to be that verbose: the Communist Party controlled it all, that's it. The rest may be seen in the "main" article. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

With regard to sloppy and unfocused, that is true, but that is in accordance with the overall article's style. I am not too interested in this topic, but upon having read the lede, I expected to see true examples of negationism, i.e. denial of concrete facts and falsification of evidences. The two major examples of negationism in Soviet era were the secret protocol and Katyn. Instead, the section tells about state sponsored revisionism, which is marginally relevant to the topic as it is described in the lede. I suggest to remove all vague wording (which, by the way, may be valid only for some periods of Soviet history), and focus on concrete cases.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, there is an interesting article where the author convincingly demonstrates that Russian ethnic chauvinism is a pretty recent phenomenon. It seems so called "Russian empire" was an empire of a Russian czar rather than the empire of Russians. People who are currently called "Russians" were called "Velikoross" (Greater Russians) in Russian empire, it was just one ethnic group. Both Czarism and Communist authorities treated true Russian nationalists with a great suspect. I would say Russian nationalism was the most suppressed in the USSR (actually, true Russian nationalists, White Army, fought against Bolsheviks in Civil war and were defeated by them). Therefore, I would say Mehnert's view is superficial, it may be a minority POV, and it probably reflects one period of Soviet history (late Stalin's era) only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not an expert, but definitely remember that in Brezhnev Era the "Russian ethnos" (Russikiy narod) was posited as the "older brother" (starshiy brat). And the chauvinism among the Russians was pretty obvious judging from derogatory nicknames and ethnic jokes. In fact this superiority attitude prevented Russians from learning languages of the republics they lived in, and it is the source of their trouble of alleged discrimination in the Baltic states. Even today may of them of older generation see beyond their dignity to learn some Lithuanian. We have Great Russian chauvinism, but we definitely need Russian chauvinism. The term has surprizingly few google hits. Pieces of this subject may be found in Russian nationalism, but the latter article is surprizingly apologetic. Most prominent manifestation of Russian chauvinism is claims (voiced even by Putin) that Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples are part of Russian ethnos and their languages are but dialects of Russian. While I am rambling here, the lede "the Great Russian chauvinism (Russian: Великорусский шовинизм) is an ideological cliché developed and used by the early Soviet government officials" is grossly misleading. This chauvinism was a real thing, Bolsheviks didn't invent it. This may be felt in the term inorodtsy, an official reference to non-tri-Russian ethnoses. Literally it may be translated as "of other kin" and 'inorodtsy' were treated as inferiors. Therefore either the article you linked at the beginning or your reading is in error or out of context. I see the latter is most probable, because Russian colonizations in different areas and times were of drastically different nature. Also, the attitudes of major Russian (imperial) strata: peasants, officials, emerging capitalists (merchants/industrialists) , church, intellectuals (among them distinguishing progressives and conservatives) to inorodtsy were very different. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are not an expert. The term inorodcy was an official term in Russian Empire that referred to all non-Orthodox subjects of the Czar (and to Georgians). The reason was simple: Empire's authorities didn't treat its subjects as representatives of some ethnic group. Ethnicity was not an important trait, because the core trait was religion. If you are Orthodox, then you are not inorodets (Georgia was a separate case, but it is a big question if that discrimination was negative or positive), because you can be expected to be a law abiding subject (not a citizen).
Confessional division was a standard approach in Europe since Medieval times, so Russian Empire was not an exception. Orthodox religion was an integral part of the Empire's state system, so if you are Orthodox, than the Russian Czar is your czar: the czar is god's anointed, and if you are Orthodox Christian, you recognize that fact. Furthermore, military service was an essential part of the czar's subjects, but how can you serve in the army if you don't take an oath? However, you could do that only if you were Orthodox. Obviously, only if you serve in the army, or at least can do that you may be considered a full scale subject of His Majesty. And all of that is sufficient to explain why non-orthodox subjects were treated with greater suspect, but they didn't serve in army, they were taxed differently (usually taxes were lower), etc.
All what you call nationalism/chauvinism was actually a consequence of archaic administrative system. No nationalism is possible if there is no nation, and modern Russian nation formed very recently.
With regard to treatment of representatives of other groups as inferior, that was a universal practice in those time Europe. That was a part of an ordinary person's psychology during that time, which means no conclusion about Russians specifically can be drawn from that.
To project present-days reality onto the distant past is a blatant (and, alas, very common) mistake.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your last statement, but it seems that we both are not experts in the subject. I skimmed thru the ru-wiki artilce ru:Инородцы and see we both are wrong. I also looked up "chauvinism" and see that the concept is not at all anchronistic with respect to 19th century Russia. But I am not sure about its applicability to Russians as an ethnos. I also disagree that Russia as a nation is only postSoviet, unless you limit the notion of nation to (extended) "nation state". Yes, I am fully aware that e.g., Poland of Finland are parts of 19th century Russian nation and I see that 19th century usage of the term "Russian nation" as a self-reference is quite confusing and appear to not be equivalent to "Russian state"... But usually I don't edit subjects I have limited expertise unless I see an obvious nonsense. So I suggest to drop this off-topic thread. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
As I already wrote, I have not much interest in that topic either, I am just somewhat disappointed by the (unfortunately, typical) trend when some Wikipedia article about a clear and well defined topic is being blurred by adding more and more pieces of irrelevant or marginally relevant information.
Russian Wikipedia is by no means a good source. Chauvinism was used in the past, and it was applied to Russians, but that was more applicable to the mood of elites or intellegantsiya. With regard to the society as whole, it was divided not by ethnicity but by other criteria: in addition to religious aspects, if was separated on different estates and smaller strata (cossaks or kazaks, peasantry, bourgeois or meschane, merchants or kuptsy, nobility or dvoryane, clergy, and some smaller groups). The social differences between them were even bigger than separation between modern time ethnic groups, and Empire's administration treated each of them quite differently. That means it would be ahistorical to speak about any general "Russian ethno-chauvinism/nationalism", because one important prerequisite is missing: a single social entity that may demonstrate such a uniform chauvinism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Russian history section

I deleted this section because there is no discussion of the falsification of hitory by the commission in question, i.e., no relevance to this article. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The commission is supposed to "defend Russia against falsifiers of history". It is directly relevant to the subject historical negationism as it relates to Russia. It is reliably sourced and I've restored it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
"Nonsense" is not an argument. Please provide the reliable sources which describe the work of the commission as revisionism/negationism/falsification. ""Releably sourced" is not an answer to my objection either. The sources must be related to article subject. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 If there are any examples of direct falsification of history, then the section should have provided them. In reality, the only information that I found in the deleted text is (i) the claim of some Ukrainian author about the intent of the commission to falsify history. That claim sounds ridiculous, keeping in mind that Ukrainian historical community is engaged inn massive attempts of history falsification (especially, whitewashing of the Holocaust perpetrators), and (ii) the criticism of the idea of state regulation of history teaching. That criticism is justified, but that does not provide any concrete examples of falsification. Meanwhile, in such European countries as Germany, Poland, Ukraine etc, some kind of historical scholarship are suppressed too. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
By the way, please restore my edits in section "American history" and in the future please more careful with reverts. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a dual feeling regarding this section. First, obviously, despite the name, the commission definitely has some agenda, and, to some degree, may be engaged in falsification of history. However, usage of Ukrainian sources seems totally ridiculous, taking into account the recent tendency of Ukrainian scholars to glorify Nazi collaborators and open fascists, like Bandera and Shukhevich. I support deletion, however, if some good peer-reviewed Western sources will become available, this section may be re-added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The commission was recognized as ridiculous even by the Russian establishment, and as far as I understand it was disbanded before doing anything but talking. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is ridiculous. However, as you correctly noted, no examples of real falsifications have been provided so far. Actually, to some degree, the activity of the commission is partially justified: it partially compensate far-right trend that become apparent in some Eastern European societies. Of course, that is not what the commission was created for.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In general, it seems the whole article must be carefully checked, and all examples of revisionism should be removed. As the lede says, we can speak about negationism when some facts are openly denied and records are falsified. Thus, when Soviet authorities denied the fact of existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact's secret protocol, that was negationism. However, when the infamous Russian commission declared that it would resist to any attempts to diminish the role of USSR in the Allied victory in WWII, that is, at least, partially, justified, because its role is really understated. Of course, if the commission would reject any role of lend-lease (or deny the very fact of its existence), that would be negationism. However, I am not aware of that type examples.

Similarly, I see no example of negationism in the claim that Southern states wanted to maintain their rights and limited government rather than preserve and expand slavery. In reality, these two things are not completely independent. IMO, that is not negationism, but just revisionism. It is not clear what concrete facts are being denied, for their rights included the right to own slaves. If some author denied the fact that that Southern states supported slavery, that would be negationism. However, no such examples are provided. I am not sure this part belongs to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the article's scope is pretty clear: as the lede explains, it should discuss forgery of historical documents, denial of some historical facts, manipulation with figures, etc. If some author claimed Auschwitz gas chamber were needed for anti-lice treatment, that is negationism. If some author or a group, or a political institution denies the fact that Southern states supported slavery - that is negationism too. We should separate true negationism from revisionism.
And, yes, if some academic sources will be provided that prove that the commission was engaged in forgery or denial of existence of historical documents and facts, then yes, the section should be re-added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you think this content would be better at Historical revisionism? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Diannaa. I think this content you removed as copyright can be restored with rephrasing/rewording. What are your thoughts? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's okay, as long as the content is completely re-written in your own words.— Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Diannaa sorry for the late reply. I've done as you asked, restored with paraphrasing and everything (diff). If there is any problem, please let me know I'll correct. Thank you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Tthere's still some overlap but it's much better.— Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Japan

This is a sensitive subject as there are strong emotions from both people of Korea and China and within Japan. Some groups within China and Korea are very strongly married to the narrative that Japan is an unapologetic negationist country where no one is taught about the history of WWII. This is not a wholly accurate description of the situation in Japan. There are ultra-nationalists that try their best to get content removed from textbooks and they once got a textbook that downplayed atrocities past review by the Ministry of Education (after which it was used by <1% of schools), but a majority of Japanese textbooks do contain information about war crimes like human experimentations, the massacre of nanking, and comfort women (source).

Therefore, I'm not sure whether the following statement belongs in the article:

"""

Others mandate negationist views, such as California and Japan, where schoolchildren are explicitly prevented from learning about the California genocide and Japanese war crimes, respectively. Notable examples of negationism include Holocaust denial, Armenian genocide denial, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, Japanese history textbook controversies, and historiography in the Soviet Union during the Stalin era.

"""

The statement misinforms readers of the article about how history is taught in Japan.

I would appreciate any comments before making an edit, because maybe it's just me who feels this is misleading. Dplre (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dplre I agree that the current text misrepresents the current state in Japan (and California) and it is appropriate to edit. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Noticed a bit of bias

I followed a link for historical revision when reading up on the wiki page for the famous most hated woman in America, the holocaust denier as she is dubbed. It is a great article that thoroughly explains the concept of her ideological standpoint, however when I click the link for the description of the term "historical revision" it brought me to "historical negation" instead. This seemingly emphasized the point of the previous article instead of supplying accuracy in its description of the link. I had to follow a secondary link to find the information produced accurately. This sort of reiterating is not necessary and draws away from a true since of knowledge and pushes forth a bias. This bias sits in factual information however prevents a researcher from drawing a genuine conclusion of truth and instead brings them to the absolute proposed by the previous article. Use the right links please🙏 . It's bad enough that we have people out there who didn't think it happened. Don't over emphasize redundancy. Provide accuracy in examples. 2600:100E:B0C6:2C1D:0:38:12C3:E401 (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Separate page for examples section

Getting way too long to read through. Too many notable examples. IceCuba (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Why my edit about Proclaimer controversy of the Bangladeshi independence has been delated? Does not it relate with historical negationism? Wiki N Islam (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wiki N Islam As I told you, we would need reliable sources saying this is historical negationism. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Poland removal

G&K link to this diff, which removed two paragraphs on the 2018 Polish law. Nikolay Koposov, a historian, did say the law was "a manifestation of Holocaust negationism" on the Cambridge University Press academic blog. Should the section be reinstated? DFlhb (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, unless you can actually address the reason it was removed. If the sources didn’t actually mention the article topic then, they probably still do not mention it now. Volunteer Marek 22:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Chattel slavery

As of this writing, the article says, "Proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy often use historical examples of non-chattel slavery to claim that enslaved white and black slaves faced the same conditions. While other forms are abhorrent, only the former involves legally-mandated generational slavery." "The former" would be ... slavery of whites? Surely that isn't the intent. IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Image duplicated on the page Denialism via an extract of this page

The lead image, File:IgdirGenocideMuseum.jpg, is transcluded on Denialism#Historical examples through an extract, but the image is duplicated a transcluded extract of the page Armenian genocide denial, appearing in the section below the other one. It could be useful to exclude the lead image for the extract (at least on Denialism) or change it for one of the two pages, although either actions might be more relevant to this page, because the lead image is more related to Armenian genocide denial and can stay on that page. If the lead image here does need changing, a different well-known example of historical negationism could be included as the lead image. Xeroctic (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead issue

I think lead has a WP:SOB problem toobigtokale (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_negationism/Archive_8&oldid=1217579185"