Talk:Historical revisionism

Additional examples?

Recent work has shown that bushido was less important than massacres by U.S. troops, for the low numbers of Japanese prisoners taken in World War II. I guess that counts as revisionism. See for example American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs' or Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#The_Pacific.

2 other examples could be the topic of wartime rape, as exemplified in these 2 articles.

• "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

• An ethical blank cheque (Publisher book summary available here)

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Guilt themes

The term "historical revisionism" in the period 1920s-1960s meant a reversal of moral judgmnent regarding wars, espe WW1, WW2, Civil War, Reconstruction, and Cold War. The term is still in use (esp regarding Cold War). The is quiote distrinct from incremental changes on the one hand, and denial (as in Holocaust denial) on the other. I added a section with complete citations to the scholarly literature. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

these examples are no different from others, that represent an alteration of views and probably do not represent a paradigm shift (as happened several times over the interpretation of the causes of the English Civil War), however I have shifted them down to examples see what you think. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

the war examples are entirely different, and so important that they dominated discussion of the topic for most of the 20th century. The guilt themes continue of great importance esp regarding the Cold War. They are not so much debates about new facts or methods, but debates about guilt -- as in who was guilty of starting World War I. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition in the lede paragraph has to be broad enough to incorporate all the examples that are given, and needs to mention historiography. So I revised and simplified it.Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the archives you will see that the previous introduction was the result of a disagreement in April and May this year between editors. The principle dissenting editor is now blocked. So your re-write is as far as I am concerned welcome. However I think "reversal" should be replaced with "revision" (it is not always a reversal see for example interpretations of the English Civil War, and "guilt" needs to be removed from the introduction as that is not the emphasis in most cases of revision and guilt is just on facet that may be up for revision. Also that we need to add the word interpretation to the sentence "The assumption is that history as it was accepted needs significant changes." to something like "The assumption is that the interpretation of an historical event or period as it is accepted needs significant change."

Also to follow the recommendations in WP:LEAD, the lead also needs expanding to give a one sentence summary of the major sections in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the lede some more. It's awkward to define "revisionism" using the word "revision." As for guilt, well yes that is the central theme in discussions on the causes of wars. (It is not a theme in many other topics, like how well did this general perform.) I agree on the assumption is that the interpretation of an historical event or period as it is accepted needs significant change. and will change that now. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FL outlawing "revisionism"

I made a few common sense changes to lead and first section. FYI - I wandered over her after finding a couple stories about Florida under Jeb Bush outlawing any kind of historical revisionism in FLorida schools a couple years back. Obviously there are more important things this article needs, like more details on some of the bigger exposes, like delay in getting info about Pearl Harbor attack to officers in charge there. (A big issue in the 1960s when I was in college.) But just in case anyone thinks it's of interest, here are couple of best sources. (Couldn't find evidence one way or other, so I don't know if it's been repealed since then):

• Revisionists, get out of Florida - Los Angeles Times
• [http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2006/6/7/florida_law_banning_revisionist_history_ignores_the_past_zimmerman_writes Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ...
• Out of Control: revisionist History in Florida Privatization Reason Magazine

CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What you cite is interesting. I think you demonstrate the need of an article, "The Bushes on revisionism." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The writing in this article strikes me as very biased. The first section advocates revisionism, and attacks those who maintain status quo. The first paragraph starts with listing awards of a person (Pulitzer Prize winning), before presenting the argument the person makes. Using authority to push point of view is not the best way to argue a position. It sounds as a blatant advertisement of revisionism. An extreme example is the paragraph starting with "If there were a universally accepted view of history that never changed, there would be no need to research it further." which sounds like a plan to keep historians employed rather an argument for revisionism. I would be surprised if, for example, views expressed in the quote by David Williams were universal, especially outside United States. Boris Bukh (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was necessarily biased one way or another; I would say that it currently is narrowly framed from a historian's point of view (i.e. those who most commonly and closely deal with the subject). A different POV, less-than-adequately included, with examples, is the effect revisionism had/has on the world. Another missing aspect of the subject is notable political or traditional resistance/opposition to legitimate 'Accession of New Data'-revisionism. Certainly, the current intro paragraph is a poor implementation of WP:LEAD summarizing the rest article. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually historians work within a paradigm. Revisionism is linked to challenging the status quo and if they are successful a paradigm shift can be said to have occurred (and to the victor the laurels) but more often revisionist theories are rejected and those who put them forward never reach the height of their profession. If this is not clear to people who read this article then we need to add it. I agree the sentence "If there were a universally accepted view of history ..." needs changing because lots of good history can be done filling in the details of a period without it being revisionist. It is only when that detail starts to refute the overall view that a revision of the interpretation of the period may be needed. This is just as true in history as it is in the sciences. --PBS (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Kolko, William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and others

These are at least the four (4) famous revisionist historians who are particularly famous, and who explicitly fall under said label. I haven't yet checked, but the article can only be justified by a substantial reference to these historians. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your previous efforts to eliminate this article failed to receive any support, let alone consensus. Now you are claiming that "the article can only be justified" if it includes "substantial" discussion of people you consider relevant to the article. This is, to say the least, a unique take on wikipedia policy. While additional relevant info certainly can and should be added to the article, based on previous discussions there is no need to reconsider whether this article should be eliminated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained below, I'm only interested in writing about this, possibly "school," of historians known as "revisionists" or "revisionist historians." I'm not interested in writing about "historical revisionism." So I only object to the REDIRECT. In the alternative, I wish that an appropriate DISAMBIGUATION be done - perhaps in addition to a separate article on these historians. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

POV Fork

Prior to his long block, Ludvikus engaged in a long debate (see archive 3) attempting to make a distinction between "Historical revisionism" and "revisionist historians". Among his first edits on being unblocked was to change the page Revisionist historians from a redirect to this article to its own article. His very first sentence, "A designation in American history which includes Gabriel Kolko, William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and others", shows the direction of the intended POV fork -- an effort to treat historical revisionism as an American phenomena rather than a practice engaged in universally (as this article makes clear). I have restored the REDIRECT page and urge Ludvikus to seek consensus before making any other changes to that article or related articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact a usage, in American historiography in which "revisionists historians" refers precisely to that group of historians. I would appreciate it very much if this issue was discussed, rather than reverted without discussion. The above also misrepresents what I've done. I'm not interested in writing about "historical revisionism." Rather, I'm interested in writing about these enumerated historians who are known as "revisionists." I therefore think there should NOT be a REDIRECT. In the alternative, perhaps a DISAMBIGUATION would be appropriate. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And here are two (2) references to show that the "POV Fork" is not my editing, but the Reversion: :[1] and [2]. Furthermore, a reference to the "block" is inappropriate, and does not contribute to the argument that the five (5) named historians are known as "revisionists" in American historiography (yet I see no entry for any of them in the article to which the Reversion was made - the article herein: "historical revisionism." --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation

Because the article herein does not even discuss the following "revisionists" - who are commonly described by scholars as such - I recommend both Disambiguation, and that Revisionist historians (Americans) receive a separate article: Gabriel Kolko, William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and others. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is there a distinct historiography by the name of "historical revisionism"?

• Comment regarding James M. McPherson:

I have re-read this historians Web-posted article on Revisionist historians. I do not believe he intends there to express a new historiography. And if he does, it's his own. Therefore, this article, which appears based on his writing, is a WP:neologism, or WP:original research. What he's doing, in this 2003 article, is a critique of Bush's use of the term "revisionist" to attack those who were critical of the US war in Iraq. The article at issue is this:

• From the President's column column of the September 2003 Perspectives, Revisionist Historians By James McPherson[3]--Ludvikus (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong on several counts. In the first place, this article IS NOT based solely, or even largely, on the McPherson article. In the second place, the quote is clear and it is only your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that claims otherwise. But thanks for sharing.

As far as the title of your RFC, you've got that wrong too. Nobody claims that there is a "distinct historiography by the name of 'historical revisionism.'" You need to reread the lede and focus on what it actually says. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So maybe it's poorly written. The article appears to say that there is a distinct historiography known as "historical revisionism." But I have failed to find any reference in it which explicitly supports that position - except for the McPherson article. And it is clearly being misread to support this article. What happened in 2003 was grounds for McPherson to criticize the Bush Administration. One of the things that McPherson is saying is that all good historians are Revisionists. And he proceeds to explain what the craft of a historian entails. He also attacks the Bush Administration, particularly Rice, for her views, and makes reference to the revisionists of the 1970's (the initial Holocaust deniers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but I do not understand doublespeak. Here's your exact "lede":

    Within historiography, that is the academic field of history,
    historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence,
    motivations and decision-making processes surrounding an historical event.
    The assumption of the revisionist is that the interpretation of a historical event or period
    as it is accepted by the majority of scholars needs a significant change.

This "lede" clearly says that the article is about a particular historiography, does it not? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, please refrain from ad hominems. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And the "lede" is wrong to the extent that it says: "historiography" = "the academic field of history." Do you wish to make the correction? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that the lede DOES NOT say the article is about a particular historiography. And historiography certainly is part of the academic field of history. Are you suggesting perhaps another preposition is in order? Easily fixed.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's Encyclopedia Britannica on what is "Historiography": [4]. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Accordingly, it's more accurate to say that it is "about" history (it's methodology, perhaps), rather then "with the field of", no? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. We can name most of the revisionists, or historical revisionists.
2. We can even - therefore - identify the texts that are so characterized.
3. And there are some texts by such "revisionists" in which this "subject" or "term" is discussed.
4. We even know that there's a link between it and holocaust denial.

But the above article consists of mostly WP editors generalizing about what those "terms" ("historical revisionism" or "revisionist historians") are - by mostly "original research." --Ludvikus (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Jeff Riggenbach, commenting on Gore Vidal, American revisionism has three (3) divisions:

    "...Vidal's vision of American history does rest on a solid foundation in historical scholarship.
    But there is also a long answer to the question, and it runs as follows:
    the historical scholarship that verifies Vidal's account of American history
    is scattered throughout the historical record of the last century and a half,
    but most of it is the product of one or more of the three closely interrelated "revisionist" movements
    that emerged in American historiography during those years.
    These three movements are the "New History," whose leading practitioners later came to be called "the Progressive historians";
    the rebellion of the "New Left Historians" that began creating consternation within the historical profession during the 1960s and '70s;
    and the closely related revisionist movement established in the 1960s by a new group of libertarian historians
    — a movement which only now, nearly half a century later, is at last gaining the adherents and generating the excitement that have long eluded it."

• Hope this reference helps us write better articles on these terms, the root of which is "revision." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Removed RFC template placed here by User:Ludvikus who is restricted from editing this page. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

On the talk page of Howard Zinn, User:Ludvikus states that the lead to this article is original research. The paragraph in the lead of historical revisionism is summary and introduction of the rest of the article, and it is not original research as its summary is common knowledge. As can easily be shown by a search of Google books [historical revisionism paradigm shift ], here are extracts from thee books from early in the search but there are many more:

• George Herbert Mead: critical assessments, Volume 1, By Peter Hamilton, page 100
• Hiroshima in history and memory, By Michael J. Hogan, page 219
• Theorizing historical consciousness, Part 16, By Peter C. Seixas page 26

This issue is also addressed by Steve Fuller on page 75 of his book Science vs. religion?: intelligent design and the problem of evolution.

Ludvikus maintains that "There is in fact a usage, in American historiography in which 'revisionists historians' refers precisely to that group of historians", well yes in the context of the disputes that they are involved in they may be, but there are also many other areas where people are called "revisionist [historians]" several examples are given in the text of the article and here is a link to an English newspaper article that states that Jörg Friedrich is a revisionist historian.

As I have placed a restriction on Ludvikus editing this section until some time in May next year, so he is unable to comment on this posting, until then. However I have added it because of the points he has raised here and on other related pages over the last few days, and as a courtesy I think his points should be addressed now rather than leaving them hanging until he is able to continue this debate. If anyone else has read what Ludvikus has written and would like to progress that point of view, then please discuss it here before making substantial changes to this page.

In a section called "Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism" in Archive 3 there was a consensus among the editors of this page at that time that there should not be a separate article called "Revisionist historians" and it should remain a redirect. Before that redirect is turned into an article there should be an RfC on this page to confirm that the previous consensus has changed. --PBS (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is any doubt (based on comments made elsewhere), I fully support your actions and your arguments above. Had you not taken your actions, I was prepared (having gone to the library) to remove the major two "sourced" additions that formed the basis for the POV fork. It appears that neither Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust" or Hinds' and Windt's "The Cold War as Rhetoric" support the claims made in the now deleted article. I had repeatedly asked L. for specific page numbers to support the claims but never received them. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I was wondering if a chapter on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe could be added here? Sir Floyd (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Example of HR

I have restored the Shakespeare Authorship Question as an example of HR, which has been deleted twice by a drop-by editor who is trying to delete or reclassify all mentions of this minority viewpoint from various wikipedia articles [[5]], [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]]. The regular editors of this page have never suggested that that the example is improper in any way, but here is a link to a related discussion where a consensus developed that the SAQ was an example of a Fringe Theory/Historical revisionism [[9]]. And here is a link to a mainstream reference that uses the term "revisionist" in describing the SAQ [[10]] (paragraph 5), and one that uses the same term in reference to authorship questions in general [[11]] (second to last paragraph). Comments from regular editors of this page are certainly appreciated. And any suggestions concerning what to do about this editor and his attempt to delete minority viewpoints from these pages??? Smatprt (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The "minority view" you seem to be defending is that the SAQ is an example of revisionism. The article itself contradicts this interpretation. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see Tom is continuing his ongoing vendetta. Please note that Administrator ScienceApologist has already weighed in on this, [[12]]. No one denies that the plays were written, for goodness sake. The "revisionism" is what role Shakespeare of Stratford actually played - author, frontman, play broker or collaborator. The diffs above from previous talks give further evidence of the revisionist aspects of the issue. It's pretty clear. Smatprt (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no discussion of the definition of historical revisionism. Your continued attempt to frame an argument by the use of pejorative language (vendetta) is noted. This needs to be decided by the regular editors of this page, not a promoter of the Oxfordian theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you've put out the word to your faithful coterie of SPA and drive-by editors. If you find an RS that states that the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism I'll abandon the field. Otherwise this is nothing but POV OR. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, smatprt, but your memory is faulty; you provided the source, and it was in the context of WP:FRINGE, not historical revisionism. In addition, the source you quote gives the definition of pseudohistory, not historical revisionism, so you need to come up with something better than what you have. I don't think you really understand the difference between the two. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No Tom, the source was provided by an admin over at the noticeboard. I then used it at their suggestion. No matter, as nothing will satisfy you anyway, so we can close this now. Kind of silly, anyhow, as historical revisionism is a form of pseudohistory, and, correct or not, the two are often interchangeable, as has been noted on these pages before. Speaking of memories - you do recall that ScienceApologist already weighed in on this particular edit and found no violation? Smatprt (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If an editor provided that, I apologise; there are so many different Shakespeare authorship discussions on so many noticeboards that it is impossible to keep up with them. Your citation of ScienceApologist has nothing to do with finding an RS that states the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism; your ref states that it is an example of pseudohistory, and I thank you for the page number because I used it as such. You also have confirmed my speculation that you don't know the difference between pseudohistory and historical revision. The two are completely different. Perhaps you should actually read the articles. Tom Reedy(talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw this on ScienceApologist's user page, where I argued that Smatprt's edit here is wholly unfounded in the sources he adduces to support what is patently an egregious WP:OR violation. I note not for the second time that also here bothBertaut and Ssilvers have mechanically assisted Smatprt once more to get yet one further mention of a fringe lunatic theory placed on a wiki page, without troubling themselves to justify on the talk page their support for a bad edit by an Spa ideologue, who seems to use wikipedia as a promo site for the Oxfordian Shakespeare Society. Given this appearance of irrational support, and ganging up, I analysed the evidence and found it was a fabrication, with a blob snipped and pasted from the Shakespeare Authorship Page, the template Smatprt uses also to put the same blob elsewhere, as a codicil. This reads as pure attention getting on pretext, to promote a fringe theory. Hence I think the passage should be elided, until its editor can rewrite it according to RS secondary sources which justify the content he proposes, and convince editors on this page that his proposal fits the criteria for this page. Until he does that, there is no room for compromise.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with below)

For the record, Smatprt reverted my deletion, without so much as a reply to the detailed evidence I provided by the link here and on Scioence Apologist's page. I made a reasonable case that his original edit was (a) a violation of WP:OR, and (b)the two sources he adduces, as given, either provide no page to allow verification, or do not support his prose. To justify his revert by calling my action, in perfect conformity to wikipedia's rules, a 'vendetta' is itself actionable. It's just that I do not want to ruin my record, of never having once taken people to task in punitive arbitration. I think such mechanisms puerile, and insist, as here, on arguing for edits on the basis of 'evidence', not whingeing.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

From the lede: "historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change." - None of your comments addresses this. Are you seriously saying that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is not a "reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence" or that SAQ researchers "assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change"? This defines the SAW to a "t" and nothing you have posted argues otherwise. Smatprt (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The type of "historical revisionism" the SAQ belongs to is Historical revisionism (negationism), which denies historical reality, not reinterprets it. I hesitate to insert it there because the other examples are so repugnant that I fear its very presence would violate NPOV. Anti-Stratfordism is a relatively benign fantasy compared to the examples on that page, even though its methodology is identical. That's one reason why I put it on the Pseudohistory page (which also should be divided into two types). It's the same with biographical criticism; although Looneyites describe his method as such, it is an entirely different breed than what is usually meant by the term. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In all examples on the page, as it now exists, historical revisionism concerns an inframural debate among historians. It is, as written, a collection of snippets of revisions by historians of a received academic perspective. There will be an example from Shakespeare when Elizabethan scholars, not self-publishing scribblers from the fringe, contest the historical academic consensus and traditional ascription of the works of Shakespeare to Shakespeare of Stratford. So far, this hasn't happened. It is is if you believed that flatearthers, in challenging the scientific mainstream, were examples of revisionists. They aren't. The appropriate category for your pet theory belongs to WP:fringe beliefs. Revisionism, beginning from Edward Bernstein's challenge to Marx's analysis of wages and immiseration, was a matter of technical challenges to theories, based on a review of evidence conducted within a discursive field by competent specialists. There is, as is universally recognized, no evidence on which to argue against Shakespeare's identity. It is all fringe speculations by, almost to a man, rank amateurs with no grounding in their subject.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to my evidence. Your source does not appear to say that the SAQ is an example of historical revisionism. Newsweek doesn't say anything about 'scientific method'. You have cited two sources which do not support anything in your edit, and clipped on the usual promo blob from the SAQ page. You are expected to explain what's going on here. Stop fudging, and reply to my analysis that you are concocting evidence.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime Bertaut reverts back, and I suppose the point is to offer an open invitation for me to rv, and thus provide Smatprt and co with a pretext to get me hauled over the coals for edit-warring, the oldest game in wikipedia, tag-teaming to get someone to step over the line, and get rid of them.

I'll oblige, for the simple reason that Bertaut gives no evidence on the talk page, neither does Ssilver, for this consistent support for Smatprt, even in a bad edit. There is no justification in the addition of the page number for the first source (page 3 "In short, this is a history written in opposition to the current prevailing view.')for including this here. They authors do not mention 'historical revisionism'. As I said, you need RS of quality defining the SAQ as an example of historical revisionism. What we have is Smatprt, and now Bertaut, reading p.3 of a source, thinking: 'Hey that sounds like historical revisionism' and using it to get Oxfordian theory onto this page. That move itself is an editorial judgement on what qualifies as historical revisionism, which is distinct from what reliable sources, on which judgements should be based, say so far (nothing). Still, this is worth following. I eagerly await other members of the tag-team to show up and identify themselves by restoring wholesale a blob of material which, as I have shown above, is a piece of fiction written by Smatprt.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OKay. The usual tagteam, now with User:Ssilver So it's 2 mechanical assists to Smatpr, who lack the common courtesy to justify what they are doing.

This is how Ssilver justifies his revert.

'Restoring referenced information. Please explain on the talk page why you see this as OR.'

All one understands from this is that the administrator Ssilver reverted without reading the talk page. For earlier to day I posted above this:-

Given this appearance of irrational support, and ganging up, I analysed the evidence and found it was a fabrication, with a blob snipped and pasted from the Shakespeare Authorship Page

Ssilvers hasn't read it, and asks me to repeat myself. No. Do your homework, son. You haven't controlled the sources, and you haven't read the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nishi. I am not an administrator, so it is you who is not reading and paying attention. Your edits seem clearly motivated by your POV. To call the Shakespeare authorship doubters "self-publishing scribblers from the fringe", as you do above, is to make it crystal clear that you are ignoring a century of legitimate discussion. What is wrong with the reference The Shakespeare Controversy, a recently published book on the subject? McFarland & Company is a legitimate publisher, no? Also, the NY Times article cited has a good description of the response by academia to the issue and it turns out that there are about 45 U.S. Shakespeare professors who think there is reasonable doubt (17% x 265). We do not need, here, to get into the discussion as to whether or not the Shakespeare doubters are right or wrong, but it seems like this is an example of "Historical revisionism" that is appropriate for this article. Your calling the Shakespeare authorship doubters "rank amateurs" and calling the question a fringe theory doesn't make it so. The examples you give are simply inapposite, and the references cited here show that there is a legitimate historical discussion. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

". . . it seems like this is an example of 'Historical revisionism' that is appropriate for this article."

No, it isn't for all the reasons listed, the most important of which is that no RS refers to it as such. Plenty of them refer to it as a fringe theory, and plenty of them refer to it as psuedohistory, but none of them refer to it as historical revisionism, which is a valid scholarly method of reinterpreting events from the past in other contexts than the traditional orientation.

To repeat myself, in case you missed it: the type of "historical revisionism" the SAQ belongs to is Historical revisionism (negationism), which denies historical reality, not reinterprets it. I hesitate to insert it there because the other examples are so repugnant that I fear its very presence would violate NPOV. Anti-Stratfordism is a relatively benign fantasy compared to the examples on that page, even though its methodology is identical. That's one reason why I put it on the Pseudohistory page (which also should be divided into two types). It's the same with biographical criticism; although Looneyites describe his method as such, it is an entirely different breed than what is usually meant by the term. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about confusing you with an admin, Ssilvers. My bad, but it's been a long day wasted on correcting nonsense.

(a)YOu don't understand WP:RS. The subject is historical revisionism. We are talking therefore about peer-reviewed historical works under usually either a university imprint or a class major publisher, written academically. The book in question is written by a lecturer in English in a nondescript college (yes, with a Phd, but not in Elizabethan studies or history) and a McFarlane in-house editor, who writes popular books on film-stars. There is no way you would get this to pass muster at Wikipedia Reliable Sources, as a history book. In fact it hasn't even the semblance of one, since it declares the real author is known, and then give snippet summaries. It shows no knowledge of the standard historical methodology.

(b)There are no serious scholars of the Elizabethan era who subscribe to this fringe theory. It has a 150 years history, and, despite Looney's ardent hopes, has yet to turn up a single scrap of evidence to back it. Worst still. Historical revisionism, please read the article, or read up on the subject (I happen to have a detailed knowledge of it regarding Marxism, Japan and Israel, hence my immediate reaction) does not deal with 58-63 different theories for one putative adjustment in an historical context. Historical revisionism is a matter of challenging a consensual academic interpretation of an age, a crucial series of events in the world, like the description of a period, or the outbreak of war (Taylor on Hitler's foreign policy, Benny Morris on Zionist historiography, the cuases of WW1). It does not deal with fringe theories arguing that all the known evidence is wrong for a person's identity is wrong, and must be replaced by inferences, not from the historical documents, but from a suspicious conspiracy reading of those documents.

Like Bertraut, you reverted without reading my explanation of why Smatprt's edit was a WP:OR violation. Prove to me your honesty by confirming for me here whether the Newsweek article cited in support of the previous sentence about 'scientific method' says anything about scientific method and Oxfordianism. Do we really need to frig about with an irrelevant book touched on glancingly in Newsweek to put over the deception that Oxfordianism uses 'scientific method'? You appear by your edit to condone this practice, which is second nature to Smatprt.

If you can justify that fiction Smatprt smuggled in, you will believe anything, like, eg. that Alan Nelson's debt-ridden, mediocre poetaster wrote The Tempest from his tomb.

Your calling the Shakespeare authorship doubters "rank amateurs" and calling the question a fringe theory doesn't make it so.

No, of course not. My opinions don't count. But Schoenbaum, Quiller-Couch, Wadsworth's do, and they dismiss this as lunatic raving, as do many others. I was using a gentle euphemism. That the doyens of Shakespearean and Elizabethan scholarship think this theory so 'fringe' it isn't worth even mentioning, because all it does is make a queer spin on research done by serious scholars, makes it both amateurish and fringe. I only use the obloquy, because my betters call a spade a spade.

Please don't mechanically revert to Smatprt's text again before arguing on a talk page, and I ask this of Bertraut also. It is extreely poor form to constantly show up, and make mechanical assists in his favour, as you both do, and then disappear, justifying yourselves with an edit summary that does not address objections on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Within historiography, that is part of the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence,

Thatis the lead, gentlemen, and that settles it. The SAQ are not part of any 'academic field of history'. Historiography, in so far as it deals with the SAQ, deals with its history as a fringe idea (Wadsworth, Shapiro, Schoenbaum) and not as part of 'the academic field' of Elizabethan history. The book cited, by a junior college lecturer in English and an inhouse writer for a small publisher, who specializes in films, is not, furthermore RS, either for Shakespeare, or for history.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect - the issue is taught at Brunell University, for example. Also Concordia University has an entire research center devoted to the question.Smatprt (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that two schools teach "the issue" does not make it part of the academic field of hisotry. And why isn't that information in the Wikipedia articles about those schools? Tom Reedy (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Because neither article goes into detail about or even lists specific courses. I could add it, of course, but wouldn't you just delete it for some reason or other? Smatprt (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should I care? If it's notable that those schools teach those subjects they're obviously related. My objection to your seeding every article possible with references and links to Oxfordism and SAQ is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning fringe theories and accuracy. It doesn't belong in this article because it's not an example. It doesn't belong in other articles because, being a fringe theory with very few adherents and almost none in academe, it's not connected "in a serious and prominent way" to the topics of those articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are universities that teach geomancy theory (if I remember some courses at Stanford's Chinese faculty had it), and alchemy. So, one could go over an compete with the geologists or chemists by saying scholars teach that, therefore it's an alternative theory.The lead does not allow a subject held in contempt by 99.9% of Elizabethan scholars to be included as a viable revisionist theory. Do we have to keep repeating this. All theories listed are theories developed within academia, using academic methodology. SAQ practitioners do not use any known methodology accepted by historians. They use a lack of familiarity with Elizabethan English and history to make a case by insinuation, for which there is, a priori, no evidence. Diana Price, for Christ's sake, makes out Gullio is a caricature of Shakespeare, her 'plagiarist, because the poor dear can't read English, which unambiguously says Gullio is plagiarizing Shakespeare. The examples are infinite. her whole argument on 'brokery' is a farce of factitious manipulation of texts. Robert Greene was a plagiarist, who admitted he himself was like Bathyllus, and how does that come out in Diana's book? That Bathyllus was Shaksper. This is like an effing dawg gnawing a marrowless bone. Leave this page, and just try and fix the SAQ one, where this issue is legitimately described. Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bertaut, please furnish a reliable source stating that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is an example of historical revisionism before reverting my deletion. There was an extended discussion about this point here, in which the admin ScienceApologist (talk concluded, "It seems reasonable to me to keep SAQ off of the negationism page, but it seems reasonable to put it on the pseudohistory page. I don't think it really belongs on the Historical Revisionism page because it isn't usually considered to be that way."

If you can come up with a reliable source stating that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is an example of historical revisinism, I will not object to its inclusion on this page. However, it is listed as an example in the pseudohistory article with four refs, all of them WP:RS.

Also it would be appreciated if your would give an explanation of your reversion. Any time you revert an edit, unless it's to revert vandalism, you are specifically directed to furnish an edit summary at the top of the edit page: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." Tom Reedy (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I have restored this section and added 2 new references:

• Shapiro makes the connection directly while discussing Bacon and Donnelly - "What began with a disguised author's hidden life blossomed into far-reaching and revisionist history: 'the inner story in the plays,' Donnelly writes, makes visible 'the struggles of factions in the courts; the interior view of the the birth of religions; the first colonization of the American continent... In the end, finding a disguised signature or an embedded autobiography or even rewriting world history wasn't enough...'.
• I also added a reference to Martin Kelly, in the Albany Times - "In the 1950s, revisionist scholars favored playwright Christopher Marlowe as the true Bard of Avon. ".

You have repeatedly said that you merely wanted a reliable source on the SAQ being an example of historical revisionism. Here are two. I hope you can let the matter drop now. I also dropped the words "scientific method" which were also a point of contention. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to revert you again. The citation you are required to produce is not a stray loose remark on one crackpot among several thousand amateurs, who in 1880, tried to rewrite history (Donnelly). The citation required is one, written by an historian of the SAQ issue, which defines the whole challenge by non-academic kibitzers, outsiders to the field of Elizabethan studies almost to a (wo)man, as subsumable under 'historical revisionism'. See the lead, which you persistently ignore. Historical revision is about inframural clashes by qualified historians over how to interpret a specific congeries of events, or an event. The lead automatically, as phrased, excludes fringe theories that have no substantial footing in academic debate, except as objects of amusement, or objects of study by historians interested in the byways of popular manias and fantasies (Wadsworth, Shapiro,et al.) I might add that nothing in the hugely voluminous output of marginal researchers has had the slightest impact on the historical field of Shakespearean studies, and therefore, nothing resembling 'historical revisionism' is underway in this regard there. Thus the SAQ issue is a non-starter, and its anomalousness to the other themes on the page stands out like a mutt's testicles. Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I omitted Martin Kelly, drama critic for the Albany Times. One can dredge up whatever you want trawling the net with the requisite 'I need this+that' request.

Within historiography, that is part of the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence,

Added for Bertaut's eyes, clipped from above. Bertaut. You appear to be a mechanical tagteamer for Smatprt. You have not contributed anything other than edit summary remarks to the talk page to justify the retention of edits that are in patent conflict with the lead definition. Do not persist in restoring Smatprt's edits unless you can give an adequate justification, and provide reasonable answers to the problems raised here on this page. To do otherwise is to behave like what in Shakespeare's day was called a 'mechanical'.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, neither of the references you provided do what you claim they do: define the SAQ as an example of historical revisionism. In the first, Shapiro is discussing Donnelly's "discovery" of an occult autobiography in the plays. Look at the entire paragraph: "Donnelly is notable less for his cryptographical skills than for his belief that there was a grander, autobiographical story buried in the plays. He saw, especially in The Tempest, a self-portrait of the "princely, benevolent and magnanimous" Francis Bacon, who, 'like Prospero, had been cast down.' What began with a disguised author's hidden life blossomed into far-reaching and revisionist history: 'the inner story in the plays,' Donnelly writes, makes visible 'the struggles of factions in the courts; the interior view of the the birth of religions; the first colonization of the American continent, in which Bacon took and active part, and something of which is hidden in The Tempest.'" The second talks about "revisionist scholars," whatever those are.

I also direct you to the section Revisionism vs. denial in the article, which states, "Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event itself, a refinement that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a 'certain body of irrefutable evidence' or a 'convergence of evidence' that suggest that an event — like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust — did in fact occur. Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence....", which eliminates the SAQ as an example of historical revisionism. It is, of course, an example of Historical revisionism (negationism), because it uses "techniques illegitimate to historical discourse—to advance a given interpretive historical view." If you want to park it there until you come up with a WP:RS that defines the SAQ as an example of historical revisionism, feel free.

I don't understand why you can't discern between historical revisionism and pseudohistory; it is clear what the differences are and that the SAQ is not an example. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You're argument does not make sense. First - no one is denying that the event (the writing of the plays" occurred. No one is denying that William Shakespeare of Stratford existed. There is no agreement thus far with your "negation" argument. And I would direct you and Nishidani to this section: "Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo." This would describe those "minor" academicians that Nishidani wants to exclude. The work of independent scholars cannot be discounted either. Lastly, Donnelly's discovery of an "inner story" that "makes visible 'the struggles of factions in the courts; the interior view of the the birth of religions; the first colonization of the American continent" is the exact same approach that the majority of the theories employ - the so-called "biographical" connections to Bacon, Oxford, Stanley, etc. It's hardly a stand-alone case, as you imply.Smatprt (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have provided sources that are reliable. If you want to challenge the sources, and what I believe they say, then do so at the appropriate venue. Smatprt (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical revisionism is a part of the "academic field of history," to quote the article. If you can't come up with a source from the academic field of history that specifically states that the SAQ is an example of revisionism, then it flatout isn't. If, as you say, it is, then it should be easy enough for you to find some reliable sources that states that in those terms. The best you have doe so far is a distortion of a comment by Shapiro and a sentence in a newspaper article. and Donnelly's "inner story" is a hallucination. The SAQ is a fringe theory, and I can give you many RSs that say so in those specific terms. It is not an example of an interpretive technique used in the academic field of history, which is why you can't find any RSs that say it is. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a form of negationism, Smatprt. Diana Price, your favorite authority, explicitly says that all evidence re Shakespeare that is not recorded in his lifetime is invalid, i.e. she excludes evidence about him postdating his death, even by a few years. That means analogously, parallel with the Holocaust, that all information about the holocaust coming from survivors of the Holocaust, interviewed or writing after WW2, would be dismissed by Price, as not factual or irrelevant.

Another parallel is the way the literature questions the Stratford monument. This paralels exactly the way Irving and others challenge the Auschwitz death chambers. The common 'sceptic' point of view is that these were changed, or renamed after the so-called event. Shakespeare's monument was actually to his father, John, and was altered later to make out it was for his son, or for the so-called poet who was his son. Negationists say Auschwitz chambers weren't for gassing, but showering, that the ovens had different functions, and point out a large number of niggling details to question the standard account.

Very little was said of the Holocaust while it was underway. Very little ((comparatively) was said of Shakespeare while he was alive. The sceptics say therefore Shakespeare qua Shaksper did not exist. The Holocaust negationists say the Holocaust camps did not exist qua death camps, but were something else, work or detention camps in which quite a lot of people died, from typhus etc.

The fundamental point of similarity is that an exiguous minority refuses to read documents within the parameters of standard historical research. David Irving was an historian, and quite accomplished. There is no one within the field of Shakespearean studies who can claim to prior status as a first-rate academic researcher into the Elizabethan period and who claims the whole of academia got things wrong over Shakespeare. There are holocaust deniers in academia like Butz, but they are not historians. Butz I think was an engineer. His The Hoax of the Twentieth Century parallels Ogburn's 1984 opus, 'The Mysterious William Shakespeare, in that both works say an entire academic field got history fundamentally wrong. Just as Butz is not a reliable source in holocaust studies except as an illustration of what can go one when amateurs rush into areas they have no formal training in, so Ogburn is not a reliable source in Shakespearean studies but is referred to as an example of what goes wrong when a rank outsider tries to evaluate historical evidence without any training in the field.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)