Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8
Archive
Archives
negationism 1 2

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia

Factually Incorrect Citation

The following material from the article is factually incorrect:

Historical revisionism can be used as a label to describe the views of self-taught historians who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence. An example of this usage is reported in a Washington Post article, "Conservatives Celebrate Winning One for the Gipper" [2]:

People for the American Way saw it in a different light [...] Our primary concern is continued right-wing intimidation against the expressions of opposing points of view, whether attacks on dissent, intimidation of scientific researchers, or a demand for historical revisionism -- or historical cleansing -- regarding Ronald Reagan. (emphasis added).

The PFAW (People for the American Way) are most specifically not referring to "self taught historians who publish articles." They are referring to CBS's decision to cancel a future broadcast, after complaints by Conservatives, an exactly inverse situation.

This reference is flawed, takes the quote out of context, and doesn't actually conform to the subject of this article (instead being a complaint about self-censorship by CBS.) It should be removed.

European laws about revisionism should have its own article

From Archive 2:

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

Lapaz 19:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A funny tag Lapaz when your the one who has suggested to define this article according to the European legal POV. The European POV is presented here, as it would be if you took it to another article. You are passionate about the topic, you could write a much longer and better treatment of it in its own article. I'm mystified why you would not consider that. It seems like your stuck on a singular definition of the term and don't/won't acknowledge, in the English language, it is a somewhat ambiguous term and not confined to just the European legal interpretation. -- Stbalbach 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I acknowledge the various senses of the word, why shouldn't I? However, I don't see the utility of creating another article which would be, to my mind, an unnecessary fork. The question is not so much on the laws prohibiting revisionism, although this is of course an important matter and debatable issue. But anyone will agree that laws are just means toward an end on which most people concerned about human rights agree on: hate speech denying any forms of crimes against humanity should be stopped, whether by legislation, as do most European states considers, or by other type of action, as does the Nizkor project do, for example. Lapaz 20:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, a complete article on European anti-hate laws would be helpful, I think the first laws were from the 1940s? This article has no history on the subject. No example historical cases, other than recent controversies that are still playing out in the news. No information about the people involved in creating and prosecuting the laws. No "world opinion" or how its influenced other countries. No counter-views. There is a lot missing, and should be its own article. That article could then link in to many other articles that discuss european anti-hate laws specifically. -- Stbalbach 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, maybe i'm wrong, but are most of the edit conflicts re: Yugoslavia and Rwanda over competing views of what HR is? A general view on one side, a European legal view on another? -- Stbalbach 15:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, we can always increase the depth of the article and this would mean at some point or another the creation of a specific articles for the legality problem. For the time being, I think it is more important including the Rwandan genocide & former Yugoslavia. No wonder PBS has a problem with those, they are recent, and thus carry lot more political charges. After all, like you've said before, Holocaust denial is only for whacos. Most people wouldn't think a second about denying gas chambers. However, PBS comments show how the circumstances of the Rwandan genocide are still, ten years afterward, completely in the shade, in particular concerning the role of FRAnce - but also the UN - and even more, it appears, in the English-speaking world than in the Francophone world. However, I don't think this edit conflict is about competing views, as it appears to me that PBS is more contesting the validity of including what he calls an "internal French matter" in the article - which, PBS, I've already told you, is quite shocking concerning a genocide which, by definition, concerns humanity in not a specific nationality ; excuse-me for my universalism but we are all, for the best & the worse, children of the Enlightenment... But does not contest that there are effective cases of revisionism. Concerning Srebrenica, I don't understand at all, the argument that it is too "early" is non-sense. The Holocaust was denied not two minutes after it was committed, as i've written before, but during the time being that it happened - actually, as you all know, the relative ignorance of the German people was one of the condition of it. Lapaz 14:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

From Archive2:

refusing to make an introduction of more than one sentence, namely: refusing to state that the Council of Europe defines revisionism as denial or downgrading of genocides or crimes against humanity, as given by the source (this definition is the only one concerning this type of revisionism, as opposed to the "neutral revisionism") and stating in which countries it is forbidden.
I've added a single-sentence reference to revisionism legislation in Europe to the lead section. -- Stbalbach 03:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I really think that the intro should clearly state the Council of Europe's definition as denial or downgrading of genocides & crimes against humanity; this is the only definition I can think of, and it's clear enough to see to what this apply. All other cases of revisionism would hereafter fall in the "neutral" revisionism entry, as they are not discussions of guiltiness or responsibility in crimes but simple historian job. Lapaz 15:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There are other types of political historical revisionism covered by legislation (eg the French colonial example you introduced to the page) so to be specific in the introduction is misleading. --PBS 16:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus in the summary its better to "dumb down" whats being said so it can be understood by anyone without assuming any prior knowledge of details. This is in the MoS. Most people will have no idea what the Council of Europe is, nor should they - just say its illegal in some countries - very clear and easy to understand. Details are in the article body. -- Stbalbach 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

See also:

Rwanda (request for comment)

Lapaz you wrote: "The context of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide continues to be an important matter of historical debate with charges of revisionism often lifted" do you mean "made" instead of "lifted"?

"made" is probably better.

How do these two references:

which are in French, explain the sentence above. Using http://world.altavista.com/ to translate the pieces I do not see the direct relevence. They seem to be general pieces on the genocide not articles on historical revisionist. Please place the sentence from the articles (in the French original) on this talk page which you think are describe "with charges of revisionism often made".

The UN statement was made at Durban during the 2001 World Conference against Racism by Gasana Ndoba, president of the Rwandan National Commission of Human Rights. Among other things, he declared:
"The time has come for us to become familiar with another word to name horror [after Holocaust, Shoah and apartheid]: itsembabwoko, a word from kinyarwanda, the national language of Rwanda, forms from the verb gutsemba, which means 'to exterminate' and ubwoko, which means 'clan, ethnic, race, specie, genre' and many other things. A polysemical word that colonial scientific racism and its postcolonial avatars have specialized in order to express the prison of "ethnic or racial membership" in which they wanted to corner each Rwandan person, thus ignoring all other sides of his identity, which is necessarily multiple as that of any human being. (...) Itsembabwoko is the term submitted to your attention because it constitutes a key for the recognition and the understanding of the singularity of the genocide committed in Rwanda, a weapon against incredulity and forgetness, against negationism, revisionism and downscaling, an instrument for the prevention of the 'crime of crimes'."
The French law proposition was made in 2002 by MP Roland Blum. It is a law proposition to enforce the already existing law on revisionism and to permit prosecution of people guilty of denying genocides recognized by France or by an international body of which France is member. It thus states:
"But to the evidence the actual law is too restrictive, as it limit itself to those acts accomplished during World War II. The demonstration of those limitations has been done when historian Bernard Lewis, who qualified the Armenian genocide as an "armenian version of this story", and Le Monde newspaper were assigned in justice by a defense comity of the Armenian cause and three survivors of the genocide, on the basis of articles 24 bis and 48-2 of the July 29 1881 law [concerning freedom of press] modified by the July 13, 1990 law [Gayssot law]. In his October 14, 1994 judgement, Paris' 'tribunal correctionnel' [a type of court] rejected the complaint. In effet, only the negation of the genocide of the Jews may be penally sanctionned. This legislative and jurisprudence position is therefore problematic. What happened today with this juridical decision concerning the Armenian genocide may repeat itself, tomorrow, for this same genocide or for those one committed in Rwanda, Bosnia or, doubtlessly, tomorrow in Chechnya. There can not be two categories of genocide, and all of them must be condemned and their negation fought in an equal manner."


Links to other language wikipedia are usually discouraged and definatly should not be put in as an ordiary link:

fr:Mission d'information parlementaire sur le Rwanda (French Parliamentary Commission))

Besides which I am not sure what you are trying to say here. "Suspicions against French and United Nations (UN) policies in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 led to the creation Suspicions of what? How is the sentence to historical revisionism?

A link is better than no link. Someone (maybe me, maybe another one) will eventually translate it. "Suspicions against the legitimacy of the policies" might be better expressed. The suspicions concerns the French support to the Hutus during this period.

"Some, such as François-Xavier Verschave, former president of French NGO Survie, have accused the French army of protecting the Hutus." Please explain why this is this to "Historical Revisionism"? Using Babel Fish Translation the http://www.amnistia.net/news/articles/negrwand/negrwand.htm article says: "Memory and revisionism of the Rwandan genocide in France" by Jean-Paul Gouteux

Recently (in September 2003) Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister of Jacques Chirac, following François Mitterrand, spoke about "genocides" in Rwanda. This plural expressed the public adhesion of the former President of the Republic, like it expresses that of the current person in charge for the French diplomacy, with the theory revisionist known as of the "double genocide".

Which is much more pertaintant to this article than the rest of the above.

Complete transl: "Recently (in September 2003), Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister of Jacques Chirac, following François Mitterand, spoke about "genocides" in Rwanda. This plural expressed the public adhesion to the revisionist theory of the "double genocide" of the former President of the Republic, as well as that of the current responsible for French diplomacy. According to this theory, the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda would have been the counter-part to a 'genocide of the Hutus by the Rwandese Patriotic Front. This take-over in 2003 of this revisionist theory by an official voice shows that it represent for French politics a major, deep and permanent problem. The explanation hereafter proposed points out at the military, diplomatic and financial implication of French authorities in the Rwandan genocide [note the singular]."
As you see, this theory of a "double genocide" is the same "counter-genocide" theory supported by Pierre Péan. The support of this theory by the French government (both by left-wing François Mitterrand and now by right-wing Dominique de Villepin) shows that it is not a simple matter of political fights, but is indeed related to matters directly concerning the state and therefore the French Republic itself. Of these matters, its responsibility during the genocide heavily weights on its support of revisionist theories claiming that two genocides took place: i.e. that the Tutsis were not only victims, but murderers, and that the Hutus did not only make themselves responsible of a genocide, but have themselves been victims of another "counter-genocide". This argument is the same used by Nazis when they say the bombings of Dresden were counter-genocides. It is not the fact that François-Xavier Verschave and others have accused the French state from protecting the Hutus during the genocide that constitutes revisionism; it is, of course, to contest the fact that the Tutsis were massively murdered by the Hutus because of their ethnic membership, which is done by claiming that a "double genocide" happenned (to my knowledge, no one yet went as far as saying that the Tutsis were'nt victims of ethnic cleansing, although it would be possible; but the claims of a counter-genocide are examples of revisionism).

In 2005, a controversial book by while journalist Pierre Péan accused the Tutsis of "counter-genocide". I did a search on this and his book and there is very little about him or this book "Black Furies, White Liars" on the net IN ENGLISH. The only links could find to this issue were:

None of these are what I would call reliable, published sources. There are articles on his hatchet job on "Le Monde" eg: [1] [2] but that Péan's book "Black Furies, White Liars" has not been mentioned in the English language press ("Black Furies, White Liars" site:uk - did not match any documents") suggest to me that it is not a good example to place on this page. Has the book been published in English? --PBS 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As may be showed above by the Amnistia article, this thesis of a "counter-genocide" is not limited to Pierre Péan. However, a book supporting this claim written by this renowned journalist of course lit up a political storm in France, in particular since its closely followed the death of François-Xavier Verschave, who was instrumental in showing up the complicities of France with the Hutus during the genocide and thus in the creation of the Parliamentary Commission. Why do [3] and [4] do not qualify as reliable, published sources? Beside, Péan's book on Le Monde was certainly not considered in France as a "hatchet job". Please do consider that this more than POV Guardian article almost exclusively bring forth Edwy Plenel's (member of the newspaper' editorial board) point of view. Again, if Péan's books each time make such a mess, it is because he's not just any journalist, and while his ideological stances may be questionned, his work usually deserves some credit, although he practices advocacy journalism and thus sometimes allows himself simplistic reductions (in other words, i want to point out that although his books are usually controversial, they are just as often not dismissed as complete non-sense). Again, PBS, I do have to admit your good faith as the interest you have shown in looking up unknown subjects does show that you are genuinely interested by this question. However, since you agree that you somehow lack some understanding of the Rwandan genocide, I do not know how you consider yourself competent enough to judge if there is effectively a case of revisionism. I actually congratulate you for not believing me "on sight" and of looking up things - if everybody was as sceptic as you are, I'm sure propaganda would have a harder time. However, I would also appreciate if you also recognized my good faith, and that, maybe, it is sometimes not utterly stupid to rely on the knowledge of someone else. When I care about my health, I do more than simply eating oranges: I ask advice to a doctor, as I trust his knowledge and good faith (i don't believe he will try to rob my organs - although I could - in other words :). I also notice that one of your main argument against this inclusion of the Rwandan genocide is that you consider it an "internal French matter" (which thus explains why most of the info about it is in French). But, if you agree that a genocide happened there, how you can you allege that the negation of this genocide through the thesis of "double genocides" is only a "French matter", and not a universal matter which has a lot more to do with the universal Human rights than with this country named France? And must I remind that before allegedly being a "French matter", it is a Rwandan matter? The lack of available sources in English concerning this genocide is certainly not a proof of its inexistence or secondary importance, but rather of the lack of moral responsibility from editors. Lapaz 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That the genocide took place is recognised by the international community, as is acknowledged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. This section is not about the genocide, this section is about historical revisionism over the Rwandan genocide. Do you have one source (in English) which shows that apart from in France that the international community and press use techniques of historical revisionism on this crime? If it is only France (or the Francaphone area), then I will continue to argue that I do not think it is a suitable example to place in this article. ---PBS 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

PBS, you have not adressed my responses. The french wikilink which you thought irrelevant (I wonder why Wikipedia allows us to use such interlanguage wikilinks since so many Wikipedians seems to be disturbed in having things in a language they may not understand - nobody forces them in reading it- anyway...) was translated, as i said it would happened. THIS IS NO FRENCH INTERNAL MATTER - this allegation is shocking, a genocide by definition concern all HUMAN KIND and thus the English Wikipedia! Lapaz 14:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know you expetect me to respond to a template! To repeat myself but with added emphasis: That the genocide took place is recognised by the international community, as is acknowledged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. This section is not about the genocide, this section is about historical revisionism over the Rwandan genocide. Do you have one source (in English) which shows that apart from in France that the international community and press use techniques of historical revisionism on this crime? If it is only France (or the Francaphone area), then I will continue to argue that I do not think it is a suitable example to place in this article. --PBS 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And I will continue to argue that you thus don't respect the necesity to have a global point of view in the English Wiki as in all others Wikipedias, and that by definition a genocide, being a crime against humanity, concerns the whole of humanity. Even though your political views may be against this universal notion of humanity, I very well know that you know enough about law to be conscient that it's juridical definition thus entails universality. Lapaz 17:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is not about the Rwandan genocide, this section is about historical revisionism of the Rwandan genocide and whether it makes a good example to include in this article. I have asked you to provide one example in English of people (who do not have to be English speaking) other than the French (or the Francaphone area) who have denied the genocide in Rwanda. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request and fits you universal notions of humanity as it turns a specific political spat in one country in to a general case of historical denial.

Your comments on my supposed political views are in my opinion close too a personal attack. Please stop doing it because it is counter productive as you are unlikely to persuade me that I am mistaken and you are correct if you force me to be confrontational. --PBS 22:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

page 72, 92, 94 of US Congress hearing, which you qualify as a "good source" (I don't see exactly what's better than the other I've provided except that it's in English, which seems to be your main point... anyway), certainly show you that revisionism claims are made. Before the debate goes further, I want to point out that we are not talking here about the "Villepin and Mitterrand POV" but about the theory of "counter-genocide". I mainly spoke of Pierre Péan's book, and your total disbelief lead me to show you some other articles, one of them who spoke about this "Villepin & Mitterrand POV", which would be better formulated by saying "official French POV". Anyway, again, I don't know why your bringing the debate on this issue, while we are discussing a more general question:
  • does a theory of "double genocides" or "counter-genocide" exist?
  • is that theory revisionist?
Please answer those questions instead of DELETING THE FACT THAT THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE IS A TARGET OF REVISIONISM. Lapaz 16:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What no apology? It is a good source because it explains the context of the internal French tiff. There is no source to explain the French Governments POV, just the accusation that they are are muddying the waters with counter arguments. There is not one balanced analysis of the tiff. --PBS 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not apologizing :) but I fail to see where you see personal attacks. Again, the question is not about an "internal French tiff", but about denial of a genocide that happened in... Rwanda. This does not limit the question to an "internal Rwandan matter" either, since by juridical and philosophical definition a genocide entails humanity in its entirety. Lapaz 22:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On examples

I think some of our problems stem from the fact that we are trying to find examples for what is an inherently negative category. Surely it's not our place to decide what is and what isn't historical revisionsim, but to provide examples of what is verifiably considered to be revisionism. From this I would suggest some broad components that all the examples will need to show.

  1. Reported consensus that an atrocity occurred - all our examples have this
  2. Examples (with evidence) of named individuals or groups being seen to deny or revise this consenus - here we will need evidence of these claims being made, and evidence of them being seen to be revisionist.

IMO none of our examples as described in the article match this latter requirement clearly and logically, although some, (such as the holocaust) could obviously be made to. I think we can probably all agree on this?

With respect, just because revisionism of a certain event has taken place in a specific language, doesn't invalidate it as an example, just makes it less useful. It is therefore entitled to space on the page, but in proportion to its illustrative value.

In the case of Rwanda therefore, we all agree that there is verifiable consensus that a genocide took place. There are also verifiable instances of individuals and groups being labelled revisionist. In Rwanda: http://www.crisisweb.org//library/documents/report_archive/A400817_13112002.pdf; Villepin, Mitterand and Pean in France (as provided by Lapaz) and as discussed in passing in the US congress [[5]].

Presumably Villepin and Mitterand in particular would deny being revisionists, so that POV would also need to be included. We would also need evidence that they said the things they're accused of (namely putting forward a double genocide theory), presumably from newspapers at the time.

I'm sure this is all bread-and-butter stuff, but if we're ever going to agree on what to include, this seems to me a good place to go from.Curious Incident 00:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the US congress is a very good source because it puts the French internal political argument into context. As you say the Villepin and Mitterand POV needs a source to explain it. --PBS 17:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
On examples? Whoever decided to give this name to the subsection? I'll change it to "Targets of revisionism", if you don't mind. Lapaz 16:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how 'On examples' is a bad name for a subsection on a talk page designed to talk about the criteria by which examples of HR are judged suitable for inclusion in the article. I'm also not sure that "targets of revisionism" doesn't have negative POV connotations. Lest we forget the aim of the page is not to denounce revisionism, but to define it, exaplin how it came about, present examples of it and to let the facts speak for themselves.Curious Incident 21:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Curious Incident and am going to revert to examples. That Lapaz is now arguing the difference shows that he does not think them to be the same thing. --PBS 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The question of course is not about the name of the talk page subsection but about the name of the subsection of the article... I fail to see how you can "let the facts speak for themselves" without listing determinated targets of revisionism. I don't see how it can "have negative POV connotations" except if you consider reality to have "negative POV connotations". The "aim" of the page is being an article on revisionism. If you can "explain how it came about", that would be very interesting; I would consider it already a good step in listing actual targets of revisionism, and wonder why precisely the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre keep on getting erased - two genocides which happened less than 20 years ago -. Of course an "example" is not the same thing as a "target"; whoever decided that the page should give just "example" of revisionism? Lapaz 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is not an all inclusive database of every case of historical revisionism. -- Stbalbach 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, why shouldn't it be? Second, if it is decided (according to which procedure?) that the article should not be such an inclusive database, this necesarily poses the problem of selecting which cases should be included. There is no denying that wanting to exclude the Rwandan genocide & the Srebrenica massacre, while including Russian textbooks history & Japanese textbook controversy, is necessarily POV. POV in itself is not, against what Wikipedia officially says, wrong. In other words, i'm sorry, but an encyclopedia, by definition, can not tolerate a negationism POV (else it would be not an encyclopedia, which concept was invented by the Enlightenment, a period of history which believed in universality of humankind); the consequence of it is that an encyclopedia's "NPOV" is necesarily a POV against revisionism. I fail to see the validity of PBS arguments against the inclusion of the Rwandan genocide & the Srebrenica massacre. Lapaz 19:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia (request for comment)

PBS thank you for putting things in archive but it seems the question has not been resolved. You delete without explanation. So, could you follow your suggestions and please write here a detailed argumentation according to which the Bosnian genocide and in particular the Srebrenica massacre have not been target of revisionism, when it is obvious that Milosevic himself denied it? Lapaz 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a good example of historical revisionism because there is an on going trial. If Milosevic pleads not guilty then he is either saying that the genocide did not take place, or he is saying that he did not take part in it. As a cut-throat defence would be likely to backfire on him, (Those who he accused of committing genocide without his consent would be likely to turn on him), so his best defence is to deny the genocide. That is a standard courtroom tactic and not historical revisionism. Milosevic is not pretending to be an historian and no-one is stating that he is a historical revisionist. --PBS 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear PBS, to know if Milosevic is an historian or not is quite irrelevant. Historical revisionism, being a political tool as you are well aware, is certainly not reduced to statements made by historians. Again, in another context, Junichiro Koizumi's successives visits to the Yasukuni shrine are seen by most of Asia as untolerable revisionism. Beside, Milosevic is not the only one in denying that the Bosnian Genocide happened, in particular the Srebrenica massacre. That there is "an on going trial" is not an argument. Milosevic claims, whether a consequence of the actual context (i.e. a juridical tactic) or honest thoughts of his, are clearly revisionists, since a genocide has happened. Lapaz 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Bosnian genocide has been proven in Srebrenica case prosecutor v. Krstic which legaly sets a historical fact that the genocide occured. The question at prosecutor v Milosevic trial is if Milosevic is responsible for proven genocide. However, Milosevic's position that genocide did not occur as part of his defense in opposition to a historically established fact is a clear case of revisionism.--Dado 19:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If only life were that simple. One of the things that the defence team of Radislav Krstic did not argue about was whether the Bosnian Muslims murdered at Srebrenica were a "Substantial part of a group". [6][7] The Appeals Chamber added, drawing from historical examples of genocide, that the “area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered” as a factor which, combined with others, can inform the analysis as to whether the targeted group is substantial.[8] If I were on Milosevic's defence team I would be exploring that one as a possible defence, because presumably "the possible extent of [his] reach" was greater than Radislav Krstic and the Bosnian Serb Army. But just as the defence presented in the Radislav Krstic trial was not in my opinion historical revisionism, neither is the defence put up by Milosevic. The judgement return at the end of his trial, will be another important landmark in inernational justice and will help to clarify the historical record. --PBS 17:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There was also another point brought up by the appeals chamber and although I don't have a direct link it generally states that given the patriarchic structure of Bosniak community in Srebrenica, as a microcosm of entire Bosnian community in general, killing of only male elements of that group would effectively render the entire community as partially or completely destroyed. It was further argued that Serbian leadership was aware of this social conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and have developed their strategy accordingly. Effectively what it means is that there was an intent to physically destroy a part of the group that would subsequently lead to a destruction of the entire group. Hence genocide. I will find a link if you need it. --Dado 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is mentioned in the second (and third links) I posted above. That is another area that Milosevic could try to mount a defence. (a) Bringing in experts to refute that arguments: The wonderful thing about experts is one can always find more to disagree with the first lot. (b) There is also the question of empirical proof. Ten years later how many of the women have entered new relationships and how many children have born in or out of wedlock in the last 8 years? The defence would of course only use the statistics if it suited their side of the argument.

Along with the patriarchic structure of the society the documents highlight the murder of disabled men, and those of boys and men outside military age, which the court found indicative that the primary motive for the murders was not elimination of soldiers or potential soldiers. But the second link also makes the point “the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.” To justify the "substantial part" is the reason for bringing in the argument about geographic scope and reach, without that proviso as the appeal court says "The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time ...". Personally I find the appeal courts argument that "Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale." not very credible. A quick Google [Tunisia Jews Germans] very first article The Jews of Tunisia shows that Nazi Germany did intend to murder Jews outside as well as in Europe. Both the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide were on such a massive scale that access to the total world wide population is not pertanant to fill the criteria "substantial part". I think that introducing perpetrator access to the victim group opens up huge complications in the legal definition of Genocide as it changes it from one of universality. --PBS 07:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)~

Umm... Are you discussing it the genocide actually happened? I don't quite get your debate here. Or are your just discussing the trial? But we're not talking specifically about the trial, we are talking about the fact that the genocide has and is been denied by some. Again: WHY DELETE THE FACT THAT THIS GENOCIDE IS A TARGET OF REVISIONISM? Lapaz 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I though what I wrote in the last two paragrahs was quite clear and still do. If you tell me which sentences do you not understand, I will try to explain them to you. You write "THE GENOCIDE IS A TARGET OF REVISIONISM". Do you mean the court's judgement or some other definition of the Bosnian genocide? Do you man historical revisionism or some other form of revisionism?

The genocide is a target of revisionism means that the fact that a genocide happened during the Srebrenica massacre is downgraded and/or denied. I already gave you sources illustrating examples of such denial. It is a form of historical revisionism as defined by the Council of Europe, that is "downgrading or denying of crimes against humanity or genocides". Lapaz 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it for several reasons:

  1. It is not sourced properly eg "Srebrenica Genocide denial, also called Srebrenica Genocide revisionism" What are the sources for those two names?
    "sources for those two names"? Well, since the genocide has been and is denied, well there is something called "denial of this genocide". Do you mean that a source should justify why denial of the Holocaust is called "Holocaust denial"? Come on...Lapaz 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    The phrases are highlighted making them a neologisms unless they are sourced. Neologisms should be avoided PBS 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
??? I failed to understand your logic. So, if I highlight the word highlighting, this mean that I've just created a neologism??? Lapaz 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. The sources given are second rate and do not directly relate to what is written in the preceding paragraph.
    Don't erase the text then, modify it. Lapaz 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. As an example, how is it advancing anyone's understanding of the meaning of historical revisionism in this article?
    It is not "an example", but a target of revisionism. Lapaz 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is an example and no one has agreed to you alteration of he section name see below. You still have not answered the qustion: As an example, how is it advancing anyone's understanding of the meaning of historical revisionism in this article? PBS
Well editors here have agreed on the word "examples" as long as you didn't use it to exclude some targets of revisionism. Let's follow this discussion on the examples subsection. Lapaz 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. One would expect the side that committed a Genocide to use propaganda to present their case in the best possible light, but propaganda is not historical revisionism (although HR could be propaganda in some circumstances). For example Goebbels's propaganda over the Allied bombing of Dresden has long outlasted him but most would not call it historical revisionism.

--PBS 21:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What kind of distinction is this? That one "would expect the side that committed a Genocide" to deny it does not mean that the denial is less real. Goebbel's propaganda over the bombing of Dresden is not only a case of revisionism, but one of the most famous argument of Nazi revisionists. Lapaz 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"it does not mean that the denial is less real" but it does mean that it is propaganda not historical revisionism. Goebbels's doctored the figures for propaganda purposes these were later used by David Irving and East German "historians" for historical revisionist purposes. But I have not seen one source which claims that the Nazi propaganda of 1945 was historical revisionism. This includes books by respected historians who have studied the information on Dresden. You state so categoracally that "Goebbel's propaganda over the bombing of Dresden is not only a case of revisionism". I am interested to see you source to back up this statment. --PBS 21:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

All right. David Irving's first book was precisely on this subject, and called The Destruction of Dresden. Robert Faurisson also wrote on the Dresden Syndrome. Again, your distinction between propaganda and negationism is of no heuristic value. I would also like you to source this pseudo-distinction. And I would like you to provide sources to show, against the various sources that I've provided during this debate, that there is no revisionism concerning the Rwandan genocide and that my sources are false. Else I will soon revert the changes, since you can't prove your allegations and can't legitimately explain your will to exclude two important RECENT targets of revisionism, namely the Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan genocide. Lapaz 21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is about Yugoslavia why are you talking about "the Rwandan genocide" in this section? It is not up to me to prove that the distinction between propaganda and historical revisionism exists. Goebbel Reichsminister for Propaganda, I can find many sources which state that. You need to find a source which backs up your assertion that "Goebbel's propaganda over the bombing of Dresden is not only a case of revisionism". --PBS 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"IT's not me, it's you!!" You act like a child. And you have no arguments. I have to provide sources but you don't? I have to prove the fact that the Srebrenica massacre are a target of revisionism, I've done it, but you may abstain yourself from the same thing? Stop diverting the debate toward where should I talk about things; maybe I talked about both because you deny that both are targets of revisionism? Lapaz 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"You act like a child" is in my opinion a personal attack, I would ask you please to desist in such attacks. The two genocides are separate issues. I have listed my arguments for why I think that the Yugoslavia genocide does not make a good example. Which argument do you disagree with? You have asserted that "Goebbel's propaganda over the bombing of Dresden is not only a case of revisionism". I disagree please proved a source for your assertion. --PBS 22:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some changes...

I've read through the article and made some fairly major alterations, additions and removals based on what I think the article should contain - to make it's subject both clear, and distinct from other articles on similar topics. This is my first major edit on wikipedia, so I apologise in advance for any mistakes regarding style and guidlines etc. I shan't be offended at all if you feel I've missed the point entirely (though I might disgree).

As I see it, the purpose of this article is to document and differentiate those revisions of history that are seen to be 'bad' and harmful/insulting from historical revisionism seen as a valuable part of historical enquiry (which has its own article). It should therefore be consistent in its use of the phrase 'historical revisionism,' both in its definition and the examples it cites. The section on the revisionist school of communist Russia was, as I see it, concerned mainly with legitimate academic revisionist history, and as such is not an example of negation.

The line between the two is somewhat blurred, especially in the terms used to describe it. 'Denial' has specifically negative ( in my view justified) connotations, but similarly 'historical revisionism' on its own is too broad a category. Not all (not even the majority of) revisions to history are 'bad' and in the souces used it is a relatively uncommon term ( it is not used at all in the text of the European Council's addition, and only once in the Explanatory Notes). It therefore needs to be caveated in this article lest legitimate revisionists (such as Haigh on the English Reformation) be tarred with the brush of Holocaust deniers. The two uses are distinct both in law and meaning, and I hope my edits go some way to clarifying this in the article.

I understand that the aim is to be NPOV, which I have tried to uphold. I guess in this spirit I should declare my own POV in case it has tainted my edits. I am appalled by attempts to deny documented genocides, but stand strongly in favour of revisionism as a central part of modern academic historiography's attempts to correct fallacious views of the past.

I hope this isn't too lengthy or presumptuous. Curious Incident 18:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your chages and I think they were too large to be edited, So I have reversed it. --PBS 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think that some aspects are unclear. The introduction contains two definitions, 1) "Historical revisionism is the reexamination of historical facts" and 2) "attempts to distort the historical record. "
It is not clear in statements such as "historical revisionism of certain historical events is a criminal offence" (introduction) and "revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results " what precisely is meant. In no country is *any* revision to a specific historical event illegal - only gross distortion. By the same token the vast majority of revisionist historians ("all history is revisionist") do not rely on 'logical fallacies.' But holocaust deniers and their ilk do. Let me know what you think. Curious Incident 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
As most words, historical revisionism is ambiguous and carries on various senses. However, the (negationism) attached after the title thus states that we are talking about revisionism in the sense of negationism, which has nothing to do with what some call "ordinary historical revisionism" (I call it simple historical studies, which of course always renew the subject; only Hegel thought he could write an end to history...). In other words, there is no debate or "some think a line has been crossed"; we are simply talking of two distinct realities carrying on the same word. The same goes for a dog and the dog constellation, but nobody would think in mistaking them. Lapaz 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just genocides or CAH

See Talk:Battle_of_Waterloo#On_Hamilton-Williams who is accused of negative historical revisionism over the Waterloo Campaign. See this spat: 1815, The Waterloo Campaign Wellington, his German Allies and the Battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras By Peter Hofschröer --PBS 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"in particular" means that it's "not just" that. Please consider changes on the Rwandan genocide subsection & the necessity of a worldwide view. There is no particular reason to favorize English-language ressources on the English Wikipedia and to reduce English Wikipedia to only what would allegedly concern English-language natives. Besides, I recall again for the record that by definition a crime against humanity concerns humanity itself and not only the particular ethnic group victim of the ethnic cleansing attempt. I am sorry, but it will be difficult for you to legitimate this last argument of yours according to which it is "not a valid example". Since revisionist attempts concerning the Rwandan genocide are a fact, they must be listed here. Basta ya! Lapaz 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz please keep the comments in the relevent section otherwise the conversations degenerate from specific points into a news group type chat which settles nothing. Back to the point. No source has been produced which states that more negative historical revisionism takes place over genocide and CAH than in other areas. As such, the statement "in particular concerning genocides and other crimes against humanity" is not verified, is a supposition so I am removing it. You will have a particularly hard time finding a source because by using French language sources in the article you are making the statment for all history in all countries and languages. --PBS 09:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Original & secondary senses of the word "revisionism"

I think it is quite pointless in arguing about which is the "original sense" of the word "historical revisionism", as displayed by this (negationist) article and the other (neutral) historical revisionism. While both surely may be distinguished, as changing the views concerning an historical event is totally legitimate and, even more, expected from a historian (as said above, only Hegel believed, two centuries ago, that he could write the final chapter of history, but that is more or less an Apocalyptic position, mind him), while nobody would expect it legitimate to contest the reality of proven genocides or crimes against humanity. But there is no point in seeing which is the "original" sense of the word (in any case, etymological allegations should be sourced - but the problem goes further, as any student of linguistics will assure you that etymology is not nearly sufficient to define a word, as definitions change over time and -- mix themselves together or "corrupt" themselves). Thus, to guess if the mild negative sense of revisionism comes from the absolute negative sense of revisionism (as in negationism) or if, to the contrary, this absolute sense of revisionism (negationism) originally derives from a perversion of the sense of so-called "neutral revisionism" (keeping in mind that total objectivity - hence "neutrality" free from all bias - in historical studies is, of course, impossible) is much alike to guessing whom, between the hen and the egg, comes first. Conclusion? The fork between a historical revisionism page and this one was meant to put aside legitimate attempts of revisionism and illegitimate attempts of revisionism, ranging from negationism (i.e. denial of crimes against humanity or genocides) to milder forms of white-washing. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as fake, would thus doubtlessly be qualified as a form of negative revisionism, as it is a proven forgery; however, until it was revealed as such, could'nt supporters of this forgery pretend they were objectively describing reality? To trace a clear distinction between milder forms of white-washing and neutral revisionism is impossible, as by definition white-washers will pretend that their attempts is legitimate while others will refuse it. However, this does not mean a line can't be traced; it just has to be done in a particular basis each time. And, of course, denying well-established crimes against humanity is, of course, an unacceptable form of revisionism, whatever one thinks about the legitimacy of legislation concerning it (this is another ethical and political problem, not related to the moral unacceptability of revisionism but to the best way in fighting this falsification). Lapaz 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not as simple as dogs and stars after all :) I agree with your distinction, I agree about the ability to trace a line, I'm just not sure that it's drawn as clearly as it might be at the moment in this article. Illegitimate revisionism is a subset of revisionism more widely - both are concerned with changing history. One is valuable, the other is wrong. I feel the article needs to define them in that order, and then clearly state that it is only going to concern itself with the latter, or else refer to illegitimate HR as HR(negationism) as it is in the title129.67.20.168 23:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In the fist section Politically motivated historical revisionism the distinction is very clearly illustrated by the articles from the washington post. The introduction was the other way around until recently[9] but a number of editors prefered this ordering. I moved the page to fit this ordering because some people were hung up on the word political in the page name.

Historical revisionism means more than adding to the canon of knowledge of a particular historical view. It means fundamental changing the theories of why or how an historical event happened. This is a well known phenomenon called by Thomas Kuhn a paradigm shift. As in any discipline the vast majority of research fill in the gaps and reinforces the current accepted theories of that discipline. Historians who just fill in the gaps but work within the current accepted historical view are not historical revisionists. Those who try to change the accepted historical view are historical revisionists. People can do this one of two ways. They can either do it by putting forward a new theory that fits the known facts better, or they can can find new facts which force a reappraisal of the current accepted historical view. This page discusses those who for whatever reasons use fraudulent means to try to change the accepted historical view of a particular historical event.

As the article says those who are trying to change a historical view by fraudulent means use the term to describe themselves because it already had a legitimate meaning. Think of the word hacker, script kiddys like to think of themselves as hackers, and the media often uses that term for script kiddys, but that does not make most script kiddys hackers for professional computer scientists (see Hacker definition controversy.

Lapaz you write "And, of course, denying well-established crimes against humanity is, of course, an unacceptable form of revisionism" are you saying that fraud in other areas of historical revisionism is acceptable? --PBS 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, although the mainstream media is mostly very careful about not referring to fraudelent negationists or deniers as historical revisionists - the quote from the washington post is itself a quote from People From the American Way. My point is simply that if the distinction and scope of this article is clearly made in the introduction, then a comparision between the two can be made by comparing the two wikipedia articles on the topic. The first section could then deal with the adoption of the term by people such as David Irving and the techniques could deal with how fraudelent revisions differ in their techniques from useful History. Both sections already in part address these issues, but it would allow some streamlining and clarification. I've editied the article to show what I mean in this respect. Following on from this, I'm not sure the section on outdated terminolgy has a place. At present it doesn't deal with attempts to dramatically change views on the past, just on the updating of the language - the guts of martin luther king's speeches are still put across. I've left it in to see what you think. I've also realised that I forgot to provide an edit summary and to sign in for a previous comment. Apologies, won't happen again. Curious Incident 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
In the UK the phrase historical revisionist is used for both meaning see Google ["David Irving" revisionist site:uk] On the first page returned are articles by the Gardian, the Times, the BBC and Reuters. --PBS 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I think the article is pretty clear now on what HR is for its purposes, although not all of the examples completely fall into this category. Curious Incident 20:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
PBS i know you are keen on Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shift. Be assured that his theories are well-known including in France. Be also assured that there are lots of others philosophers of science out there & that his theory is only one among others. It thus carries no authoritative value on other theories. This is not the place to argue Kuhn, but if you read the Wiki page you will see a tiny start of a critique against them. Anyway, Kuhn, a physicist as you know, was more concerned about physics than history. To my knowledge, in no place whatsoever in the book does he speaks about historical studies. You are thus extending his theory, which is your right but is only, please keep this in mind, your own interpretation. I am not sure at all that the notion of "paradigm shift" is valid in historical studies. Anyway, this is precisely a debate concerning the other article - I think Stalblach will agree with me on that one. Here we are dealing with manipulation of history. That it is a political and thus controversed subject and that it is impossible to theoretically trace a clear line between this manipulation of history and normal historical research does not mean that it does not exist en reality. If neutral revisionism is simply having a new appraisal on facts and finding new interpretations for facts that have been known since a long time, than it does not even enter your definition of a paradigm shift: it is normal research, and you very well know that the majority of scientific research, according to Kuhn, is this "normal research". Hence revisionism is not the revising of a "historical paradigm". Could you give me an example of historical paradigm?... Anyway, I'm getting carried away, I sure would like to discuss Kuhn with you, but please first take into account that his theory has no authoritative value. Would'nt a historian be more qualified to speak about historical studies & so-called "paradigms" than a physicist? I'm sure you could find some historical sources, if you really want to find a clear & scientifical definition of revisionism. You already know my pOV on that: i don't think an abstract definition - apart from the Council of Europe's one, which is limitative, since it does not include milder examples of revisionism (although, like you pointed out somehow accusing-me, it is not even so sure that they are really "milder", as erasing people from photos - which, by the way, is what modern TV does all the time... - is probably as important a problem as denying a genocide -- the question being, as always when speaking of genocide, if they can be "compared" to anything else). ANyway, in no way does your kuhnist theory justify your deletion of the Rwandan genocide and of the Srebrenica massacre. Lapaz 14:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You say "This is not the place to argue Kuhn" I agree. I say this is not the section to argue about the inclusion or otherwise of Rwandan and Bosnian genocides. they should be discussed above in the relevent sections. --PBS 17:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to side with Shearer on this one. If, as the article says, historical revisionism is the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past, then Srebrenica massacre should not be mentioned in the article because there were never commonly held ideas about it. I don't know about Rwanda, but one more thing that should go out is Armenian genocide, because Turkey didn't acknowledge that it happened, ever, and it didn't revise anything. This is different than, say, Holocaust denialism, because Holocaust was generally accepted fact before being denied, or revisionism in Russian and Japanese textbooks which said one thing in one year and another in the next.

Additionally, the section about Srebrenica says that "Srebrenica Genocide denial, also called Srebrenica Genocide revisionism, is the belief that the Srebrenica genocide did not occur [...]", which makes it look like an article introduction. But that terms are actually not used. Nikola 21:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikola you've just shown your misunderstanding. Revisionism is NOT "the attempt to change commonly held ideas about the past" and the modification of a so-called historical paradigm, which is only PBS personal interpretation of Thomas Kuhn, who was a physicist and spoke of the history of (natural) sciences, not of historiography. Kuhn is totally irrelevant here. Why don't you quote Pierre-André Taguieff or some serious historians instead? Lapaz 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian genocide has not been commonly accepted among some Turks but it has been accepted among many others. Srebrenica genocide has been accepted by ICTY that is in turn supported by all UN member nations. It is almost expected that those who are accused of or who condone genocide would be first to resort to revisionism and denial. --Dado 00:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On Examples

Perhapse we should consider turning the list of Examples inside out and have a section for each name in the list "Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists".

This would then allow us the room to expand on the Techniques while keeping the article focused. For example

Under "counter-genocide" there could be the example of Dresden and providing it is put in context and clearly explained Lapaz's beloved French Rwandan tiff. But not all of (the tiff) just those parts needed to highlight and explan the section on counter-genocide.

There is however there is a problem with the current list, it is not sourced! So any examples included must be sourced with an article or book which uses the term "counter genocide" or what ever.

What do others think? -- PBS 08:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You really sound horrible writing "Lapaz's beloved French Rwandan tiff", but I'll let you assume the responsibility for this strange sentence. How dare you say that I didn't provide sources for the Rwandan genocide and the Srebrenica massacre? You haven't provided one source contradicting my various references. Now, to speak about "examples", well, I am totally opposed in having the article list only the "examples" you - or any other user - deem fittable, especially when this is used to exclude the Rwandan genocide & the Srebrenica massacre, two genocides that happened in the last 20 years and that are both targets of revisionism (please see old edit) (see also old edit because of course, with this edit wars, the multiple sources strangely get deleted. I rather think that the article should list all targets of revisionism as defined by the article, hence including denial or down-grading of crimes against humanity. PBS, you must provide serious sources claiming that there is no revisionism concerning the Rwandan genocide or the Srebrenica massacre. Lapaz 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what I was referring to. The unsourced list is in the section ==Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists==. --PBS 11:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

from the mediation cabal

I've closed this mediation case involving issues presented to the cabal on March 4. I agree with the suggestion made below by Stbalbach. If talk page disputes and/or edit wars flare up here again, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page Best, Flying Jazz 06:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

rfc

I have not been able to follow the Rwhanda and Yugoslavia arguments pro and con. Since this has gone on so long and is a drain on otherwise productive resources and time and sanity, might I suggest it might take less effort in the long term to create a RfC summary and open it up to other perspectives and agree to let the RfC decide the issue for those two entries (or one or the other)? Information on how to create a RfC can be found at wikipedia:rfc -- Stbalbach 15:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

turkey

Genocide is not the right term for the events in 1915. The events may be painfull but they cannot be called as a genocide. If Turkish thesis are historical revisionism also Armenian claims must be regarded in the same way.--Hattusili 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it called anything but genocide; in fact it's usually referred to as the first genocide of the 20th century. It is not just "Armenian claims" that calls it genocide, it is standard mainstream historical interpretation. --Stbalbach 17:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can call this massacre not genocide. Does this idea makes me a historical revisionist? (I hope not) I think labeling people who oppose with mainstream historical interpretation as revisionist is not right.--Hattusili 17:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason you may not think of the Ottoman Armenian casualties as genocide is that the topic is taboo in Turkey. The only version you will hear is the Turkish side, in which Mehmet Talat Paşa is a hero and the Armenians are villains. Armenians only hear the other side. Only when the events can be discussed openly, without insults, people being threatened by lawsuits (Article 301!), or worse, can the truth emerge. For the rest: Yurtta barış, Cihanda sulh :) --LambiamTalk 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You are partially right Turkish education system does not teach anything about these events. But it is not the reason why I am against the word "genocide". Genocide is a specific word and to use this term there are other necessary circumstances (like a modern state). If we don't accept specific circumstances for "gencide" events in Khojaly or Cyprus can be called as genocide. And you are right the events must be discussed openly without calling all oppositions as historical revisionism.--Hattusili 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkish education system does not teach anything about these events
According to genocide, "stage 8" of a genocide is "Denial". --Stbalbach 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

but you need other stages too--Hattusili 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no single definition of the term "genocide" that is agreed upon by everyone, and the meaning in ordinary use may differ from the legal meaning. See the article Genocide. The term did not yet exist at the end of the Ottoman Empire. But that does not mean we cannot apply this notion to historical events, and in fact people do that; see the article Genocides in history. I am not aware of a requirement like being a modern state generally being considered necessary for the use of this term. As far as I know, the Republic of Turkey, apart from giving a much lower estimated number of deaths, mainly rejects the use of this term because, as far as the Ottoman State is responsible for any events leading to the death of countless Armenian civilians, the aim of destruction is claimed to be absent. The Armenian casualties, according to the official position, were not intentional. In modern parlance, it was "collateral damage" of the Tehcir. If that is true, then I wonder why people like Kemal Kerinçsiz oppose an open discussion so much. Personally, I'm not against the use of the term, and I don't understand why it upsets a lot of people so much, while everyone who was in the slightest responsible has been dead and buried for a long time. But I'm very much against one-sided accounts that show only the suffering of one side. See also Halil Berktay's observations, expressed in an interview in Radikal in 2001. LambiamTalk 16:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
See also the Herero Genocide at the beginning of the 20th century, for a point of comparison. Lapaz 17:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Found this debate through the RfC page. I just wanted to add this in in case it better helps frame what genocide is. According to the UN:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Seeing as most claims of genocide are now handled by the UN and World Court I felt there definition may be a good addition, however I do not know enough about the particulars of the events to weigh in on where I stand. I will however say it sounds as though what is needed here is a person of neither decent who knows of the topic, as it sounds like from both of your reasonings that each culture attempts to paint themselves and the conflict in a positive light. Hope this helps, and hope other come to help who know more on the specifics of the topic. --Zer0faults 16:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism and the CCP

I am supprised to see no mention of the CCP's historical revisionism in this article. Can anyone explain why it is not included? Bozu 12:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm? Can you explain yourself? Else, regarding inclusion of stuff and not, not to bring up back an old debate (I see one guy who'll wake up immediately), not yet!!, but as you may see if you read the talk page, I tried without success to include the revisionist "double genocide" (or "counter genocide") thesis concerning the 1994 Rwandan genocide on one hand, and on the other hand the multiple revisionist claims concerning the Srebrenica massacres, but I fell into an edit-war with an user (User. Stalblach nicely - I hadn't had the chance to thank him yet! -- proposed me to define my Request for Arbitration, which I will eventually do one day if nobody takes up the job - I just don't fell confortable with deposing a courtsuit (in particular "concerning revisionism"!:=)... In any cases, explain yourself, whatever happens, it may personally interest me... Regards, and hello to PBS also (after all, we did globally improve the article with all that, didn't we?) ! Lapaz 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

United States altering its history

Why is it that this page dosn't show any examples of the United States altering its history,its pretty clear that almost every country tampers with its history,were no different ,the lack of information about the Philippine American, and the US bomming of Laos during Vietnam war in American textbooks,as well as the outright lies about Christopher Columbus ,and George Washington are all examples of Historical revisionism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.65 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Two articles called "Historical revisionism"

Wouldn't life be simpler if this article was just at Negationism, like its French, Spanish and Italian counterparts? Using "historical revisionism" throughout the text really confuses things.--Pharos 08:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea. Although "historical revisionism" and "negationism" are often used so interchangeably in English that for some people they mean the same thing - pragmatically I'm afraid if we had an article called "historical revisionism" that wasn't about negationism it would upset some, er, passionate editors, it has in the past lead to some lengthy and heated "discussions". At least with the current title and framing it appeases any concerns about the multiple uses and meanings of the word "historical revisionism", which at least in English, is much more commonly known and used than negationism. -- Stbalbach 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course we do have an article on historical revisionism that isn't about negationism, so I'm not sure quite what you mean. You're right that negationism is more often just called "historical revisionism" in common English, but our guideline advises to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" [emphasis added].--Pharos 03:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation --PBS 07:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Guideline #1 under "Specific topic" is "another word or more complete name that is equally clear". Guideline #2 recommends a generic class or a specific context in parentheses, if guideline #1 is not applicable, and guideline #3 an adjective if that fails. In this case, we have disambiguated not with a generic class, a specific context, or even an adjective, but with a synonym, which is pretty unprecedented I think. A synonym is just what guideline #1 recommends instead of using a parenthetical name.--Pharos 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would solve the long-standing concern over the split/fork of "historical revisionism". The current naming does seem non-standard and awkward. We are writing about the concept, not the term. Popular terms for the concept can always be explained in the article. -- Stbalbach 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the name should remain as it is. When Irving was found guilty in Austria he was described by the British press as a revisionist:

AFAICT none of them used the term negationism. The use of negationism is brackets allows for Disambiguation and the pipe trick [[Historical revisionism (negationism)|]] appears as Historical revisionism --PBS 15:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this usage seriously confuses legitimate historical revisionism with negationism, and lends undue credence to the latter. We are only deepening this impression by directly linking "historical revisionism" to an article on Holocaust denial etc. The guideline here is explicitly to use "another word or more complete name that is equally clear".--Pharos 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Negationism is not in common usage in English and as such is not equally clear. If it is used at all, it tends to be in translations of the French works. When I looked about six months ago on the net, I only came across two usages of it which was not from translations of French articles. The first was the title of a book and the second was a UN reference to the slave trade (which could easily have been in French originally of all I know). You will find both listed in the footnotes of the article. Yes the meanings are mixed up, probably more so on the British side of the pond the the American, but as the references I have provided above indicate that British popular usage is towards Historical revisionism (negationism) not towards Historical revisionism as such I consider this in part to be under National varieties of English. --PBS 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, "negationism" is quite clear in the sense described, in that it has no other significant encyclopedic meaning. Of course it is not the most common name, but the guideline is specifically to use the unambiguous name when the most common name is unavailable. This clearly has nothing to do with "national varieties of English"; it's just a difference between popular and academic writing. There are a number of references for "negationism" and "negationist" on JSTOR, most of which are not French-related. "Negationism" is a legitimate word, clear and unambiguous for this phenomenon, and it's already in the title. It's silly to have "historical revisionism (negationism)" instead of just "negationism".--Pharos 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! Stalbach, I thought you would be interested in sgth I've recently read: in Specters of Marx (2003), Jacques Derrida speaks in a little footnote about revisionism, and complains because the term "historical revisionism", which originally meant what we've been refering to here as negationism, had been hijacked by people whom wanted to block any analysis of past events and historiography (in others words, of what you refer to as classic historical revisionism, except according to your version the "hijacking" went the other way around). I just thought it was interesting, and, finally, I think that it shows that the problem is more complex than what we both originally thought. I can get you the exact place where I saw it if you're interested by it...

PS: Of course, I think this reinforce PBS's point to keep the current name, because this ambiguity between both sorts of revisionism (the legitimate one & the other) is almost purposeful, either way you look at it (that revisionism originally meant "negationism", as in Derrida's version (you might argue that he is refering to French, but I'm not sure it's so clear, given that Derrida pays close attention to various languages, and one could almost say that he was more often in the States than in France...), or to the contrary that revisionism is originally legitimate, and was hijacked by those whom instrumentalized it for political use. We might also note that the two reverse versions do not simply mirror each other: in the latter version, historical revisionism is originally neutral research, which seeks to review readings of history which have been officialized, and is then instrumentalized for political use; in Derrida's version, the word revisionism is originally attached to its negationist sense, but the point is not to "clean it" of its political instrumentalization. Rather, it is a political aim which refers to questionning of established historiography (and, beyond simple historiography, Derrida is of course also refering to deconstruction) as (negationist) revisionism. I don't know if you see where I'm going, but on the first version it seems like history is disconnected with politics, and that there is such a thing as "neutral" revisionism, while in the second version, it is quite clear that in eitehr case, legitimate or unlegitimate history, we're dealing with politics. Derrida doesn't fall in the trap of believing that a totally pure and neutral discourse is possible. But this is yet another subject... Lapaz 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Crypto-revisionism

I'm not familiar with this term. Can we have citations to its use? Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Slander or Promotion

In the case of Lincoln and Churchill, are these actual examples or just hypothetical? If this has actually occured, then it should be cited; if not, no one should be unfairly singled out. I'm also curious about the James Wolfe statement. What do these revised books say about Montcalm; he accidentally fell over the cliff? I don't even see the point of censoring such a figure. It's not like "french partisans" are trying to hide a single defeat in an otherwise victorious war...

Does this slander and promotion of "crypto-revisionism" actually happen, or merely that it could happen? If this actually occurs, it should be easy to find sources. If not, I'll delete it. jag123 10:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_negationism/Archive_3&oldid=737379775"