Jump to content

Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Historical revisionism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.231.142.44 (talk) at 06:00, 2 June 2007 (→Red Scare). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

revert

The edit as of 15:13 Nov 19 does not seem to add to the page at all. I will revert it.--droptone 04:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Page 2

See the Archive for talk on this article before this time stamp. Philip Baird Shearer 13:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contradict

This article contradicts itself.--AI 22:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to explain. Stbalbach 00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need for more/better examples

This article could be improved significantly if more examples were added, and if the current examples were siginificantly expanded. IMO, as is I feel the examples section of this article is weak, and a reader new to the subject might come off with an impression of "huh?", "so what?" or "that's it?" -- Ithacagorges 16:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the sources (or the time to find said sources at the moment), but there is a particularly popular piece of historical misinformation regarding the United States Army intentionally giving smallpox invested blankets to Native American tribes (I believe the Mandan were named specifically). This view was promoted by Ward Churchill, see the section of his article titled Fabrication and plagiarism.

Black History

There is a stream of so-called 'black history' -- I am not referring to the legitimate history of the African Americans -- that tries to imply that Plato, for example, was African, and that Africa was far more culturally advanced than admitted by mainstream history. I don't have references to that, but it would be an interesting subject of this article as well.

Those kind of things tend to pop up during 'black history month' on college campusses (spelling?)

--80.228.154.61 09:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I would put Martin Bernal under Historical revisionism (political) Septentrionalis 01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Two pages? historical revisionism (political) is plain historical revisionism

I agree there is no reason justifying two different entries, historical revisionism and historical revisionism (political). Of course history is a matter of debate, and the official history is more than often the history of the winners (Napoleon may have said that; so did Marx, Walter Benjamin and many others). That history (as a discourse or a social science) change with time is the subject of historiography. This evolution on the writing of history is dependent on the discovery of new facts, but also in a change of ideas and understanding: the two are very difficult to dissociate, as any change in written history can be suspected of political motives. Henceforth, it is foolish to distinguish between a "good" neutral so-called "historical revisionism" and a "bad" "historical revisionism (political)". Historical revisionism is always political in nature, as is history in itself.

Now, that historians constantly rewrite history (some historians study this: historiography) does not mean that this should be called "historical revisionism". This is plain historical work. Revisionism, if words make sense, refers to the rewriting of history following a policy agenda, and denial of Holocaust is the most famous example of it. A Wikipedia entry on "historical revisionism" should include everything put in "historical revisionism (political)", and all comments about history being in itself a revisionist science, far from being deleted, should be replaced in the "history" article (or maybe "philosophy of history"), as they belong to the day-to-day works of history. Not doing this is simply letting this entry becoming a forum for revisionists. As show the talk-archives, naming David Irving has been interpretated here, by some, to be an act of POV. However, he has been condemned for something that justice calls "historical revisionism", he is therefore a good example of it. Nobody seems to consider that quoting the stupid and dangerous lies of "The Holocaust of Industry" (in the (politics) entry) is a Nazi POV !!! It should be written here that revisionism is condemned by law in a lot of country. Moreover, as someone already said, Japanese historic revisionism should certainly be stated!

Now, if after all this someone still really wants to defend historical revisionism, why not just write something to defend such extremist POV by a more neutral sentence such as: "Advocates of historical revisionism point out that their work is condemned as politically incorrect ?" This is the only NPOV way to defend those extremist POV that i can think off... Kaliz 20:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism is a legitimate scholarly term that has been co-opted by certain parties to give fringe wacko theories undeserved legitimacy. That is why it has been separated to a different article. It's about isolating it so we can have a decent and relevant article about the legitimate term and meaning, as recognized by mainstream historians. In fact "historical revisionism (political)" could be renamed to somthing entirely different, because its really not history at all, its propaganda. How about we rename that article historical propaganda, because thats what it is, it has nothing to do with legetimate history. --Stbalbach 21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Huh? I am reverting your merge for the following reasons:

  1. The merge tag was just put up today.
  2. There is opposition to the merge.
  3. The discussion of the merge is in the other article.

--Stbalbach 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If the discussion of the merge is in the other article, then the "merge" template should also be in the other article, shouldn't it? :) Kaliz 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Just cut-paste from the other page. Kaliz 14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You have not given a reason for the POV tag. --Stbalbach 14:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Merge & POV check

I put back the POV check because we don't even agree if there should be a POV check or not. The debate on the merge of the two articles (merging with historical revisionism (political)) proves that they are people who object to this supposed "legitimate" sense of historical revisionism (which does not mean that history is not a matter of debate: but this is not the primary sense of historical revisionism, whether among historians or non-historians (or we are not reading the same historians). The questions of historiography and historic debate should be adressed in the historiography entry or in a entry about philosophy of history (there is such a category in Wiki, so why not use it). This article (as written for the time being) is obviously a matter of philosophical and historian debate, not something which can be written as a NPOV, since not all think there really is a "legitimate" historical revisionism. As i allowed myself to write in the other page, some (Marx, Walter Benjamin, Michel Foucault, to name a few) think that any attempt to write history, or to rewrite history, has got political aims. As such, there is no "neutral" historical revisionism: revisionism is political by nature. See also revisionism: it was used by Karl Kautsky and Eduard Bernstein in marxist controversy, then used to refer to irredentism and refusal of actual state-borders, then to the Holocaust denial and other genocides-denial : all of those uses are political uses. Kaliz 14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

No matter what you personally believe, the term "historical revisionism" is used, in its legitimate sense as defined here, by some historians and others, particularly in the USA. Are they right? Wrong? That would be original research to comment on. Our job is to report what other people do. Your attempt here to de-legitimize the term, by putting it on equal level with wacko holocaust deniers and others who are involved in political propaganda, is really against how Wikipedia operates. We dont tell the world how things should be, we report on how things are. --Stbalbach 14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If such really is the case, why don't you add in this entry that it is used in this so-called "legitimate sense" "by some historians and others, particularly in the USA" ? You may be right, but please understand that from an European point of view, historical revisionism means denial of historical facts. I am not "trying" to de-legitimize this term: from my personal POV, you are the one trying to legitimate this term! If you are honest, you will then recognize that we have a POV debate here. If you precisely indicate in the introduction that what you are refering to in this entry is a "legitimate sense" used in the USA, but that in others parts of the world such as Europe historical revisionism always refer to historical revisionism (political), I will stop bugging you as I don't consider myself qualified enough to tell you what it means in the US. But I certainly considers myself qualified enough to tell you what it means in Europe! Does that sound right to you? However, you will still need to put a citation from some US mainstream historians refering to this "legitimate" sense. Is that fine? Kaliz 15:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ismeant by "in Europe" here. In the UK, the terms "historical revsionist" or "revisionist history of X" are commonly used to refer to a new or non-mainstream model being adopted to explain some historical phenomenon. Paul B 08:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that was the case but was not sure. Will clarify. --Stbalbach 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes I'm aware that in Europe the term has negative connotations, that it does not have in the USA. I think the distinction between the two is, one is history revised by historians for legitimate historical reasons, and the other is history revised by non-historians for political or propaganda reasons. Such as your example in France, with French politicians trying to revise history for political reasons. But the term is so commonly used in the USA, in its legitimate sense, im not sure what kind of specific source there is, but will try. I would actually prefer to rename historical revisionism (political) to somthing else like historical propaganda which would solve a lot of problems (but create some new ones with those editors who believe otherwise). --Stbalbach 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Legitimate historical revisionism

Here are a couple articles that show that historical revisionism is a legitimate undertaking, with the term being co-opted by certain history "deniers" for political purposes:

Perhaps we should rename historical revisionism (political) to historical deniers since this seems to be the latest description being used for these types of things, and a more appropriate one. --Stbalbach 15:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I will check them up a bit later. About your proposition to rename political historical revisionism, as you said, you are aware that it would be problematic. If I understand your POV, than it is more a matter of US versus European definition (which wouldn't be the first time; the way Holocaust denial is legally adressed in the US and Europe (see also the Chomsky controversy) shows that we don't generally share the same ideas - this is no wonder to me, as Europe was a lot more implicated in this genocide than the US, and is thus much more sensitive (rightly so, from my POV) to denial of this major state crime). I think that if this explains our controversy (as yet we are waiting for others POV), we should clearly put a disambig sign saying, for this entry: this article concerns the US sense of the word "historical revisionism" (and, therefore, the same sign on the other entry: this article concerns the European sense of the word "historical revisionism"). You should be aware that not doing this can be considered (at least in Europe) as a way of trying to justify those wacko theories that you rightly reprove. This terrible ambiguity should be fixed! However, there will still be this point to adress: in Marx, Benjamin or Foucault POV, history is always political and revision of history always has political aims... Kaliz 15:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the English wikipedia, not the German or French wikipedia. Im not sure what your objection is, other than a cultural linguistic mis-understanding. Also, whats your objection to renaming the historical revisionism (political) article to historical deniers? I mentioned it might be problematic, only because the holocaust deniers might object to it. --15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If a "legitimate" historian should accidentally trip across some documents that would brand him "illegitimate", what should he do? Who should he call for advice? Is he still an historian if he suppresses the new facts he has found - accidentally found?

Cleaning Up

I'm trying to cleanup the page a little bit, I hope I'm maintaining NPOV while doing so. Changes:

  • Tried to make the first section more readable, while perserving the distinction between European and US definitions. First I did a "minor cleanup", which seeks to make the first paragraph more readable, without removing the information about different uses of the term. Then I saved that and did a "major cleanup" which deleted big chunks of the article. These were peices which were poorly written, vague, not NPOV, or didn't seem to offer much to a new reader. I left the lists there, although I think they should be rewritten. Lampros 20:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Lampos, the article before was not perfect, but it was not bad. If you had replaced it with somthing better, I would not mind but your revision was really confusing and somewhat inaccurate. --Stbalbach 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess I disagree, I feel its terrible. But, can we compromise and go with my "minor cleanup" version? Lampros 01:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok I rewrote the intro and made it simple. Two meanings. Two articles. Not complicated. The lead section should just be an introduction/summary, with the body of the article containing the real content and explanation. Hopefully that will avoid further confusion in the future. I deleted a section you had wanted deleted in your major edit. --Stbalbach 05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I changed the first paragraph a little just to try to make it read more clearly. Tell me what you think. I think the "historical revisionism" section contains a lot of opinions ("all history is inherently revisionist") and is generally more analylitical than factual. I'd ask you to consider revising it. Lampros 02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I did make one content change in the first paragraph. I removed "by professional historians". I don't think historical revisionism does not have to be practiced by professionals in order to be legitimate. Lampros 02:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why?

The term Revisionism leaves me bored and confused: it seems to crop up mostly in newspaper opinion pieces, where the snotty right/left winger is taking on an arrogant left/right winger, over some historical event that plays host to their mutual contempt. Where did the term derive from, where was it first used? historical revisionism (political) should be moved to Historical Propaganda, and Historical Revisionism should be moved to Historical Accuracy. It's difficult enough to tidy up the facts, without this pair of yobs barging in and smashing all the crockery.--shtove 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See talk page comments Talk:Historical revisionism (political)#Historical semanticism. --Stbalbach 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding changing the names of the articles: these are the terms widely used, so we use them here. We reflect usage, rather than invent better terms. --KM

I'm not inventing terms - just suggesting the use of clear terms instead. Anyway, I spoke out of frustration. Nothing hangs on it.--shtove 18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Frustrated with dealing with the intellectual elite? It must be catching. I wish their IQs were as high as we had been led to believe.

Hey! Where's the Cold War?

During the later phases of the Cold War, and especially just after the fall of Communism in Russia, there were a number of histories which were called "revisionist." For a time, this was the main usage heard, and clashed with the usage of the term by holocaust deniers. Some people, not knowing the difference between a description and a label, were confused. Knowing that "Cold War Revisionists" were on the left, the use of the term by holocaust deniers indicated its use by the so-called right. But "revisionism" is from the "accepted notions," not in any given direction. This is just what seemed most important to me about the term. --Sobolewski 19:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

historical revisionism (political). -- Stbalbach 21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all of them, what about them?

"Often historians who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, or ethnic minority historians, or those who work outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, who have the most to gain and the least to lose, by shaking up the establishment." -- what about them all? --Gutza T T+ 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Atomic Attacks on Japan

I'm not sure this section is a good example of revisionism. The reason is, the "old" view is still widely held and valid, the US certainly did drop the bomb to end the war quickly - it may have also had other motivations, which are now coming to light, which adds to a more nuanced picture of events. There will always be new perspectives and theories, just like in Decline of the Roman Empire, but these are not really revisionistic. Revisionism, strictly speaking, is where you take an established idea and discount it based on new evidence. Otherwise it is just the normal process of better understanding the many nuances and complexity of history. So I guess the question is, is there a school of thought saying the US did not drop the bomb because it wanted to end the war early? -- Stbalbach 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Historical denial is when you take an accepted piece of propaganda and expose it. You really piss people off - all they can do is holler and scream. Any fact of history is rarely totally assailable ( little pieces, etc )- propaganda, however, is loads of fun to dump on ( a soft target and especially if the supporters are powerful and can only look stupid and whiny and you can see their blood pressure zoom ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Stbalbach, the text I added was relevant to the subject. Most reviewers specifically described Gar Alperovitz's work as "revisionist." In fact, BookList labeled him "the dean of revisionist scholars." The specifics I illustrated are not "nuances," they are assertions that directly contradict previous historical accounts:
- US leadership did NOT believe that the atomic option was inevitable, militarily necessary, or tactically superior to conventional warfare.
- US leadership did NOT believe that a long, drawn-out invasion of mainland Japan was the likely alternative.
To answer your question, No, the US did not drop the bomb to end the war, quickly or otherwise. According to the historians I referenced, conventional warfare was recommended by the Pentagon as the best means to end the war. Truman dropped the bomb for one reason--to intimidate Stalin. And that's definitely a "revisionist" view. JulietCastro 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the mainstream view. The examples here are showing how revisionism has overturned mainstream established beliefs and are now the new mainstream. I can't comment if what your saying is right or wrong, all I know is that any general history book doesn't say Truman dropped it because of Stalin. People use the term revisionist for a lot of reasons, one is to give their views legitimacy (rightly or wrongly). And he may even be right. It's just too controversial or not well established to be a good example in this article. -- Stbalbach 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


That is primarily because published "books" are usually released long after something is know. The historian who gets too far ahead of the crowd gets his little hand slapped.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Scare

I deleted this because it is a straw-man argument and not an example of revisionist history. There is no cited evidence for the sweeping assumption that communist espionage was "generally considered paranoia"; on the contrary, going back to World War II, any common-sense observer understood that the U.S. and Soviet Union spied on each other. What was in question was the depth and degree of the spying, and the number of spies. The "Red Scare", by contrast, was a domestic political situation in which McCarthy made sweeping claims that Soviet espionage was vast and all-intrusive, and used this to assail his political enemies from the Senate Floor. Therefore, by itself, the fact that the Soviets spied on the U.S. is not revisionist history since there was never any broad consensus otherwise.3Tigers 11:47, 18 February 2007 PST

There is a difference between 'keeping in contact with a crazed enemy' and 'plotting to annulated everything american'.

-G

Reverted Chinese attempts to re-write history

For the same reasons it was reverted[1] at Historical revisionism (negationism) discussed here. These articles are not a platform to list everything someone happens to think is revisionism. We are listing uncontroversial, sourced and fully accepted examples only. -- Stbalbach 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please check these sources:
[2]
http://hnn.us/articles/7077.html]
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/korea/FI11Dg03.html] Cydevil 03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I found the article http://hnn.us/articles/7077.html mentioned above interesting, and I think it could be the basis for an example of nationalism causing two differing interpretations of history. The tone of the section Stbalbach removed is confrontational and has an non neutral point of view, so I do not think that that version should be included here. However if it were to be re-written with the emphasis of how today's nationalism causes different interpretations of the same historical events in a region of Asia (Just as nationalism effects the views on the Battle of Waterloo in Europe) -- and providing it does not go in for Korea is right/wrong "so yar-boo sucks to the other lot", then I think it could be a useful addition to the examples in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why Koguryo is regarded as "Korean" is not nnecessarily because of Korean nationalism. Look at all the other tertiary sources, such as Britannica, and non-Korean history/archaeology books on Korea. The conventional view is that Koguryo was a "Korean" state, and Chinese had the same view until the 80s. The change came with an ideological shift of defining China as a "multi-ethnic unitary state", so this is a good example of shifting ideologies. Also, when Mark Byington says that "Korea is misguided", he's referring to the wide-spread suspicion among Koreans that China's doing this to justify a possible annexation of North Korea. He's not referring to the conventional view that Koguryo is a Korean state. Cydevil 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See the Goguryeo article (modern politics section and article lock-down for edit warring), this is controversial issue, until they get their house in order in the Goguryeo article, I don't see why it should be included here, its a debate spilling out into other articles, this article should not become a new front in a POV war. -- Stbalbach 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

given the fact that Cydevil is missing my point, I agree with Stbalbach that we are better off not including a contriversial example like this on this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Irish history concerning relations with Britain

Irish revisionism

I'm kind of concerned about using the Irish revisionism as an example of revisionism. It looks more like an conscious attempt to change history for a political purposes (ie. Historical revisionism (negationism)), than a legitimate academic discovery of new facts. -- Stbalbach 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an ongoing debate here in Ireland, but with no political angle. Deliberately, I quoted Kevin Whelan's work on 1798 as he outlined the various revisions long before Irish independence; before the politics became important. Each revision mentioned / discovered new 'facts' and chose to ignore most previous analyses. Of course one can split hairs over whether something is negationist or not. I have supplied a reference and if you disagree after you have read it, then delete it. Deleting a point before you read a source is just vandalism.Red Hurley 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok what got me was this: Since 1970 some commentators and historians have sought or promoted a revisionist approach, often deprecated as anti-national which makes it sound like negationism. I read it more closely and I think I understand what your saying, that there is a school of revisionism trying to overturn the nationalistic scholarship of the past with social, micro, economic, womens, etc.. which would be a good example of revisionism. BTW sorry if you saw it as vandalism, I posted this note and wait about a week or so and didn't hear back so removal of the text was the next logical step. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. KW analysed revisionism itself - that is why he should be mentioned. I was also guilty of adding in the new scientific analyses as in: " Carbon dating, the examination of ice cores and tree rings and measuring oxygen isotopes in bones in the last few decades have provided new data with which to argue new hypotheses. The new area of 'ancient DNA', recovering partial results, allows scientists to argue for example whether or not humans are partly descended from Neanderthals. The reader must watch out for multi-disciplinary academic papers that end with cautious or generalised results." History no longer derives from dots of ink on a page.Red Hurley 07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historical_revisionism/Archive_2&oldid=135266685"