Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 2

message: Rm modification by Stbalblach: "Colonialism has been a matter of debate in the past, for some justified as a "work of progress", such as Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden"; but also denounced by others, such as labeled imperialism by Marxist theory. The debate continues today, some historians contend that colonialism was in fact the domination of non-European people and the exploitation of natural resources needed for European growth. Thus, these historians believe that writing the history of colonialism as globally positive for the colonized people would be revisionistic. Others disagree and believe colonialism was not entirely black and white and had some positive benefits." The rm words are in italic. "Some" was reverted, because it is a general historian consensus that colonialism was in fact a form of domination. Denying of this consensus is a form of, precisely, historical "political" revisionism. Hence the debate in France. If you want to add this, quote an historian (i could quote thousands, since all historians that deserve this title agree on this). I then removed the other sentence : "Other disagree and believe colonialism was not entirely black and white" because no serious historian see things in a manicheic point of view. The debate is not: was colonialism good or bad, but can colonialism be, in a general sense, considered a positive work of enlightment, as stated the colonialist ideology (see Rudyard Kipling)? Today, no serious historian believe this, and even so-called "positive achievements" (schools, hospitals, roads and railways...) are not called like this by colonized people, as they they have more than anything help exploitation of natural resources and cultural imperialism. However, i did include the so-called "positive achievements" which a minority of persons would want to hide the more global negative achievements. Kaliz 14:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonialism 

message: This is a proposed name change for the article to Historical deniers. The reasons are thus:
#Historical revisionism is a term with legitimate usage in the USA and some other English speaking countries, but in many parts of Europe it has no legitimate meaning and is a watchword for holocaust deniers and others with a political agenda. This has lead to some confusion and POV battles.
#Lately, the trend seems to be to call the holocaust revisionists holocaust deniers. This is clearly seen with a google search, and there are a number of essays that discuss this. "denier" seems to be a commonly used word now in place of revisionist.
#Historical deniers is a more appropriate description and less confusing. "Revisionist" is ambigious, deniers is clear. It lends no legitimacy to the deniers.
--Stbalbach 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically, wouldnt a historical denier be someone who has a history of denying? I vote we keep the current title. freestylefrappe 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term originates from holocaust deniers, which is the current vouge description. Many people who fight the holocaust deniers are using the term "historical deniers", which is why I suggested it, because people are actually using the term -- unlike "political historical revisionism" which was completely made-up just for Wikipedia and is original research (I should know, I was the one who created the article). --Stbalbach 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Keep revisionism, specifically because it is neutral to both sides, deniers is loaded. Because this field is not limited to one event but covers several, many of which are seen from two and sometimes multiple viewpoints and still subject to debate, it would not be NPOV to pejoratively label any side of that debate. Vote to keep as is.Chris 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no neutral ground. To be included in this category implicity means someone who intentionally denies the truth (lies). --Stbalbach 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with User:stbalbach on this one. If someone uses the term "historical deniers", he means to be nasty. I think we should move the article. Lampros 02:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed name change to [[Historical deniers]] 

message: If we're keeping this page with any name, I think we need to rewrite it. I can't follow what, if anything, the article is trying to say. Lots of sentences have grammatical or stylistic errors or are simply incoherent. If you feel strongly about the content of this article, please clean it up. You might not be happy with the job I or the cleanup crew does. Lampros 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "rewrites" scare me. So do your comments that you think theres nothing in the article of value. Im not entirely sure you understand the nature of the material. --23:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My merge earlier was probably preemptory, if that's what you mean. I've spent a lot of time studying this topic and feel that I understand it pretty well. I don't feel there's much of value here, basically, because I feel that we could better deal with this issue through specific articles on "holocaust denial" or related subjects. If you don't want me to nominate this for cleanup why not pull out The Elements of Style and rewrite it yourself? Either way, please sign your comments. Lampros 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: When historical revisionism becomes part of the agenda of a political institution, the partisan message is communicated as propaganda and all dissenting opinion is prohibited by the practice of legalized censorship. This form of revisionism practiced all throughout history, from ancient times to modern. User:69.22.232.44 --11:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ah, the Grammar 

message: :Thus, these historians believe that writing the history of colonialism as globally positive for the colonized people would be revisionistic.
Is it not the otherway around? Most Pre-WWII European historians wrote "that colonialism as globally positive" so to write that it was not is to be revisionistic. I think that this whole section should be removed because it falls within the remit of true historical revisionism particularly in countries which had large colonial empires. --PBS 16:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonialism 

message: Currently the role of the French Army in Rwanda during the Genocide is under official investigation. So IMHO this is a current issue not a good example political historical revisionism. If France is found guilty of genocide and in the future some French history books then deny it, this issue would be appropriate for this article. --PBS 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a good example (as I said before there is a French judicial investigation into the allegations of French complicity in the Genocide going on at the moment it is a little early for it to be included as an example of Historical revisionism), and more importantly because no one in any westen media is disputing that a genocide took place. It is only an internal French squable about how culprable some French men were in the Genoncide.  --PBS 20:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have given no valid reasons of deleting Rwanda. Your conception of "how long time one needs before discussing things" is personal; others are sure that discussing the Rwandan genocide is something urgent. Yes, Pierre Péan among others is disputing there is genocide. That you don't know him doesn't mean he doesn't. Your "internal French squabble" concerns a genocide that happened in Rwanda. Lapaz 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I have a valid reason. IMO It is only an internal French squable about how culprable some French men were in the Genoncide. It is thefor not a good example for inclusion in this page. If  anyone agreed with you by now another person would have reinstated it.  --PBS 00:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every major historical event has political historical revisionism. There should be some criteria for what gets included it in this article, since the possibilities are endless. IMO it should be illustrative and well known and well established and documented and non-controversial (ie. not on-going). If we can agree on some general criteria we wont have to fight over every example. -- Stbalbach 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rwanda 

message: Ive added a NPOV tag and placed "citation needed" tags in specific places that need them. The entire first paragraph is made up of "weasel words" such as "thse historians" etc.. it is referenced to a French-language journalistic article that the vast majority of English  language speaking Wikipedians will be unble to Verify for neutrality and accuracy. --Stbalbach 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree the whole section should be removed. This article is not supposed to be a complete list, but helpful examples. This example is not clear, it's actually very complex and needs a lot more than a small section to explain properly. I would suggest writing its own article - from that take a summary and add it here. --Stbalbach 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Mans burden 

message: Why are Illig and Fomenko here, and not in a section of Historical Revisionism? Do their theses have a political purpose?  Septentrionalis 22:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-political Revisionism 

message: The far-right Japanese politicians had been dening the fact that they slautered many Chinese, Korean, and South-east Asian civilians during their occupation in World War II. I don't understand why this and related articles talked about the Jews and the Holocaust, but nothing on the Chinese and the Japanese. The Japanese denials should be accounted in this and similar articles!
AquaExecution 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am looking forward to your sourced contribution on the subject. PBS 09:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Japanese? 

message: You want a link about revisionism concerning the Srebrenica massacre? You amaze me more & more... Here you go , and please do not include it in the article as I would certainly consider it as a spam-attempt. Good lord, i wasn't wrong in thinking that Wikipedia definitely needed some warning concerning revisionism attempts, as it seems that we don't all share the same obvious ethical condemnation of revisionist attempts, which for some reason some people believe to be limited to Holocaust denial. Somebody included George Orwell's 1984; i believe we may have to add Brave New World to the list... Shearer, do you really make a point in deciding which revisionist denials of genocides should be made, or is is truely a strange-thought concern of "the encyclopedia contents of Wikipedia" (which, according to you, should not list genocides committed in the past 15 years - of course, they are a bit more of a moral concern to us than the Holocaust, committed by evil Nazis - nor massacres of Muslims?) Beside, you did add no reason validing your REPEATED DELETIONS. Is it because it is Sunday morning, or I am getting tired of this game? Lapaz 13:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Srebrenica massacres & obvious condemnation of revisionism which Wikipedia seems to need 

message: Regarding this opening paragraph
:In this sense, revisionists seeks to rewrite history by downgrading or simply ignoring essential facts, as in for example Holocaust denial. Germany and Austria have passed a law which makes denial of the Holocaust an offence, as did France with the 1990 Loi Gayssot, which may punish Holocaust denial of prison sentence, and Belgium with the 1995 Negationism Act. Belgian MPs are contemplating the extension of the Negationist Act to other revisionist attempts [1].
The highlited part is a level of detail in the lead paragraph that is simply out of line. The lead paragraph is a summary of the article, with specific details in the body of the article. Read the MoS. This article is not specifically about the holocaust denial, it is just one example of historical revisionism. Youve taken this one issue that you are personally passionate about and gone off the deep end promoting it. Please back off and work as part of a community instead of reverting every change that people make to this article. --Stbalbach 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply reverted changes made by one other user, PBS. Your opinions about myself may be interesting, but are irrelevant concerning this section. It is certainly not a specific detail, and is not out of line. Lapaz 00:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is too specific for the lead section. Reverted. Stbalbach 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I have removed this paragraph: 
: Revisionism is condemned in seven European countries, and the European Commission projected the expansion of these laws to all European countries in its 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. Article 6, titled  "Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity" states that each party (of the European Union) "shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right: distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party."
#Because the number of countries is not sourced. (should be with 
#The Council of Europe which is mentioned in the given source is not an EU institution so the whole of the rest of the paragraph is just wrong.
#Even if it is altered to read Council of Europe as clasue 2 of Article 6 can be used to qualify clause 1 not to quote it is misleading at best. --PBS 20:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Council of Europe not an EU institution? but European countries do have a European Court of Human Rights, whatever power it may have... bickering over law when you're talking about denial of war crimes. Why? Lapaz 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW please note the addition of a reference for  "seven European countries[12]". and "Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Switzerland..." in alphabetic order and the addition of a reference for Lithuania. --PBS 10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU and the Council of Europe 

message: Unless there is a verifiable [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source] which links crypto-revisionism to historical revisionism it should be removd from this article as Wikipedia does not create neologisms.
The article on Krypto-revisionism that they made it up as a pun on Crypto-revisionism but they give no source for that and they do not say that it is the same as negationism or historical revisionism as used on this page. But as the talk page Talk:Krypto-revisionism to that article says: 
:What is "crypto-revisionism"? I can't find anything about it on Google. -AaronW 20:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The identification of Stalin's essay as a seminal attack on crypto-revisionism, led Bland to identify the clique around Vosnosensky and Khruschev who had tried to establish capitalism in the USSR during Stalin's lifetime.
I do not think that this is an authoritative source to base the use of the term in a general purpose Encyclopaedia unless it is very heavily qualified and only used in communist circles  --PBS 11:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I introduced the term here because I have redirected the cryptorevisionism article here. If you don't agree with the term, ask for its deletion over there. Revisionism is the only correct term in my European view. Please stop deleting Rwandan genocide, former Yugoslavia (Srebrenica massacres - I have provided you with a revisionist link so please maintain good faith) and official definition from the Council of Europe - I'm sure you don't like it, however it's the only one.  Lapaz 16:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  crypto-revisionism 

message: For some time now the  #Lead section of this piece has had in bold  "Political historical revisionism". Today the introduction has been re-arranged so that the words begin at the start of the article. This I think is a mistake because it introduces the idea that the phrase Political historical revisionism is in common usage when AFAICT it is merely a phrase used here to differentiate the it from its traditional meaning of historical revisionism and  neologisms should be avoided. So I moved the page to Historical revisionism (negationism) and I making some changes to the introduction to avoid this. --PBS 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good move, I was the one who originally called it "historical revisionism (political)" for lack of a better description, to disambiguate it from the scholarly field - now we have the word negationism which is actually used by people in the real world. -- Stbalbach 16:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move