Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 1

message: The distinction between Revisionist history and Historical revisionism is not objective, but rather based on POV. Also, this article is shockingly biased against Revisionist history. Sam [Spade] 13:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that it is not even talking about Historical revisionism at all, but a different phenomenon that often masquerades as Historical revisionism. Jayjg 19:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the distinction is POV. "Masquerades" is especially difficult, since all Historical revisionism is is the re-evaluation of history. How can you say 1 person is "pretending" to re-evaluate, whilst the other is "honestly" re-evaluating? Its a matter of opinion whose evaluation is to be respected, esp. when they are possessing of the needed credentials. Sam [Spade] 20:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a compromise suggested in Talk:Historical revisionism. Sam [Spade] 19:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Get your story straight,This is exactly what the Holocaust Lobby does
<quote>
#The selective use of facts.
#The denial or derision of known facts.
#The assumption of unproven facts.
#The fabrication of facts.
#The obfuscation of facts.
#The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
#The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts.
#Constant attack against those disputing their views.
</quote>
Revisionist critizise the use of sources. Come up with new ones and examine the arguments already given.
Check it for yourself:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html
Millions of people were discovered to be gone and the holocaust is the only reasonable explanation. Fred Bauder 14:15, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
They might have gone to the jungles in thailand to join the 10 lost tribes. --Sam of clubs 23:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense! 

message: The first hyperlink supposedly linking to satire of historical revisionism is, while hilarious, not appropriately named. The article linked to is faceituously called "Revisionist History," but it is actually nothing more than funny historical errors from history students' papers. What should we do with this? --BDD 22:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant Link

message: As there is currently no section on Douglas Tottle in the article I have moved the discussion from this page talk page to Talk:Douglas Tottle to aid anyone who wishes to turn the article Douglas Tottle from a stub into a full article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Douglas Tottle

message: As most of the people and groups claiming that Lincoln was homosexual or bisexual are gay themselves I don't think the description of Lincoln as a homosexual is designed to discredit Lincoln ; the intention is to elevate the perception of gays in the eyes of the public.
:I think it's both. First discredit Lincoln and then make him a crusader for homosexual "rights" --Nerd42 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're missing the point: the people who are making new claims about Lincoln's sexuality don't see it as discrediting him.  And I haven't seen anyone try to say that Lincoln was a "crusader" for gay rights (which would be historically absurd), just to use him as an exemplar of a positive role model with an unconventional sexuality.  Of course, it's a matter of historical debate whether he had the sexual leanings that some advocates have recently claimed (I'm not convinced, myself), but I don't think that either discrediting him, or claiming that he was a 19th century Larry Kramer, is the intention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln

message: I just checked and realized that its been a year since the Merge was proposed. Since I don't see any strong support in favor of keeping this page, I'm going to do the merge. Actually, I'm going to dump the text into historical revisionism, save it, then open it up again and delete it. There's a lot of great examples of historical revisionism here, and maybe they deserve their own page. But this is not an encyplopedia entry. Lampros 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performing a Merge with historical revisionism; POV-fork