Talk:Historical negationism/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  European laws about revisionism should have its own article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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.
#Reported consensus that an atrocity occurred - all our examples have this
#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 []. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: This article is not an all inclusive database of every case of historical revisionism.  -- Stbalbach 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: On examples

message: * See Archive 2#Srebrenica massacres & obvious condemnation of revisionism which Wikipedia seems to need
* See Archive 2#Yugoslavia
: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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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".  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. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: ??? 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia (request for comment) 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Not just genocides or CAH 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Original & secondary senses of the word "revisionism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On Examples 

message: 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)
thread_title:  from the mediation cabal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  rfc 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Historical revisionism and the CCP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Two articles called "Historical revisionism" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slander or Promotion