Talk:Historical negationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rename-2[edit]

Had we for this page a clearer title, and a subsequent clearer defined content, we would not waste our time in edit wars like that one about the entry image by Jacob de Wit. This page should be limited to the instances were a distinctly defined entity, individual person , association or government, negates one or more historical events for which an unequivocal documentation is available. In this case Negationism should be the title, as already chosen by the French, German, Korean, Italian, Dutch Japanese and Serbian Wikipedia. A slightly larger approach may be preferred, and in this case the title could be Historical falsification (Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia). But, please, stay away from titles like Illegitimate historical revisionism or historical revisionism (illegitimate), as well as the current one, which trigger a constant uneasiness about what to include and what not. Carlotm (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We use the term which is commonly used in English language, not Dutch, Korean, nor Khoisan. In English "revisionism" is used in two senses. This talk page had long discussions already about the article title. Please review talk page archives before going any further. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Negationism is a derivative form from the very English word negation. Please try not to be too snobbish and ridicule. Everybody, in 2015, understand very well what negationism means. That this question was considered many times in the past does not denote it is settled for ever. I, at least, am of the opinion that the current title should be scrapped right away; to use a term with two so different and opposed meanings is too dangerous and should be avoided. To persevere with it may slip to objectively help the negationist archipelago who like to meddle with this kind of ambiguity and to appear as real historians legitimately involved in some revisionist work. In the same time the current title seems to draw any kind of different arguments and notices, and the article is growing and growing with a confused pace. Carlotm (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat, and expand, point by point.
  • re: does not denote it is settled for ever. Sure thing, consensus may change. But... Please review talk archives and tell us which arguments are no longer applicable, so that we can restart the discussion without repeating everything already said all over again.
  • We (in wikipedia) use English language, not Dutch, Korean, nor Khoisan: their usage is good to know but irrelevant in English-language wikipedia. And there is nothing snobbish in this: wikipedias in every language have widely different rules, independent of each other. We have our rules to follow I am inviting you to.
  • re: Negationism is a derivative form from the very English word negation . FYI in my last edits I removed the claim that it was derived from French; so we are almost on the same page here.
  • re: should be scrapped right away - FYI I am uneasy with this title either. But we don't scrap anything long-standing in haste. We have a standard procedure for renaming an article: Wikipedia:Requested moves. A common guideline is to wait at least a week for other opinions: many people have a real life too.
  • If you want to rename an article with a long-standing title, you have to prove, using reliable references to support your opinion, that a new title is more appropriate.
  • re: the article is growing and growing - Same here, colleague. You are very welcome to join me in its cleanup, as I explained in #Article scope talk section. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I need to make a preamble here about Wiki rules and Wiki consensus. Rules. I tend not to give a big shot at them because quite often anything, from even to odd, may be found there; that is, others will have reasons to confute your choice anyhow. It happened here too. Consensus. I have the feeling that the number of those who, along the last decade, were favorable to a change in the direction of negationism, is much higher than that of the disagreers, born always from the same limited stock. It's just a feeling, and with it goes the feeling that few are keeping things immobile, and changes are seen as pointless intrusions. Unfortunately all this discourages participation. Now to your questions, Staszek Lem. People may be worried not to find the word negationism in English dictionaries; I am not. Languages are living creatures: surely there was a time when a pizza restaurant could be found in a British street but not in an English dictionary. I doubt people were then talking about round, crunchy (or soft) and oily bread with topping of different kinds. Let dictionaries make their job, which is to record neologisms, not to solicit them, and encyclopedias their, which is to expound arguments in the clearest way, especially on titles, and especially when it comes to an English-written encyclopedia. English is the lingua franca of our times and we have the responsibility to be understandable and unambiguous to a big lot of different people. That's the reason for scrapping as soon as possible the current title which hung in the air for so long a time. Not in haste, I would rather say finally. It's my obligation to wait for inputs nevertheless. The appropriateness of negationism, or the like, comes also from the current title itself, which, with its misleading frills (Historical revisionism) and its explanatory appendix (negationism), cries aloud for the legitimization of the latter. That's a boon per se. As for the cleanup, it's always worth to start from the head than from the tail. So, let's focus on the title. Carlotm (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a feeling that you got it upside down about wikipedia. It in not a job of wikipedia to promote terminology wikipedians think "correct". We have to use terminology which is currently in preferred use, no matter how long opinion pieces you write. So, for the 'mpth time, if you want to change article title, please follow wikipedia procedures for this, as I explained above. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My only concern is that we need an understandable and unambiguous title; the current one is not. Carlotm (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. But we also need it to be in common usage. BTW, Why do you think the current title (Historical revisionism (negationism)) is ambiguous? It is of same type as, say, "Athens (typeface)". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Mi conviction is that there are too many English speaking people who don't easily recognize the derogatory sense of historical revisionism, and, when they do, they tend to associate it to the sense attributed to revisionism for the infighting inside the political left; for them the association of historical revisionism with negationism is quite unusual and new. So, those who are reasoning in the way you do, are creating a new sens for historical revisionism, willing to avert an uncommon usage of a word (negationism), which, by the way, is rather common anyway. That's quite contradictory. Isn't it? Carlotm (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Staszek Lem: The term negationism is from the French usage, that negation is an English word is besides the point. It was the French who started to use the term negationism for genocide deniers.

@Carlotm in British English the common meaning of revisionist outside the history profession is this negative meaning, because it was successfully used by people like Irving and the use of it in the new-media news-media tends to restrict its use for people like Irving.

This is unfortunate but it is a similar linguistic shift to that which happened with the computer term hacker. Among computer professionals hacker continues to be used in it old meaning, but in the press and among the public it only means someone who tries to break into computer systems illegally.

A good example of this is Der Brand: Deutschland im Bombenkrieg … written by Jörg Friedrich. Friedrich's book was controversial and was damned by a large section of the British media. Friedrich acknowledges that he is a revisionist historian, but is probably using the term with its professional historian connotations (his book was looking at the bombing of Germany from the point of view the victims while acknowledging that two wrongs do not make a right). But even the Guardian used his acknowledgement to imply that he was similar to David Irving, "Friedrich admits he is a revisionist"[1] -- admits is like admitting to a moral crime as in "he admits he is a paedophile" (admits is not a word used for the revisionists of the English Civil War (who are seen as respectable historians)).

-- PBS (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

PBS, your points seem to me kind of amiss; our duty is to be clear, understandable and unambiguous. That a word is a neologism, or it originates from a use by another language, does not speak much to me; I would say it's totally irrelevant.
The use in the new-media of revisionism with a derogatory sense is a British thing, quite restricted. So you want to avoid the use of negationism for linguistic reasons, and in the same time you pretend to impose "a linguistic novelty", the linguistic shift to other English speaking peoples and all the others for whom English is a lingua franca. Above all this, remark the ambiguity in the use of the term revisionism that yourself acknowledge when stating that «Friedrich acknowledges that he is a revisionist historian, but is probably using the term with its professional historian connotations». What "probably"? We need to give our readers something better than that. That's why we need to change the title. Carlotm (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Colleague, please let me remind you that wikipedia has certain policies. Yes, "our duty is to be clear, understandable and unambiguous". But we actieve our duty by analysing what is reported in reliable sources, not on something some wikipedia feels strongly about. Therefore please don't write essays about correct English (tl;dr); instead try to prove your point by references to authorities, the only acceptable way to change content in wikipedia, especially in case of disagreements. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Carlotm sorry that was a typo by me "new-media" should have been "news-media". The UK press makes up a large part of the international contribution to English usage, and the meaning use of it as a label for the illegitimate revisionists is common place eg: "British revisionist historian David Irving is being held in Austria under laws against denying the Holocaust." Austria holds 'Holocaust denier', BBC (17 November 2005), published several year after an English judge had labelled him a holocaust denier -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem, show me a relaiable source, all British ones apart, where revisionism is used as a synonym of negationism.
PBS, your citation comes from BBC News. What more British than that? Oh, you do mean that its colonial power endures to these days, at least linguistically! I see. I see also that you are skipping a response to my earlier questioning, which was not about your obvious typo. Carlotm (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Carlotm:, What is your definition of negationism? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem, it's in the second sentence of my first writing, up there. Carlotm (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I.e. basically agrees what our article says "which—if it constitutes the denial of historical crimes—is also sometimes called negationism". In other words, our article covers any pseudo-scholarly distortions of history, inlcuding negationism. In other words "negationism" is not a synonym to whatever the article discusses. Now, after your answer, I can answer mine: please do Google Books search for "revisionism + Holocaust" and you will readily find plenty of cases when Holocaust denial is called "revisionism" by mainstream historians whatever language they speak. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Staszek Lem, following your suggestion and sipping the content of the first five pages, I found a gang of sites and blogs of negationist organizations and individuals: the Institute for Historical Review, the "Mad Revisionist", the Middle East Forum website, the Adelaide Institute ("There is no evidence to prove that the gas chambers existed" they wrote), or the late David McCalden, among others. These sites do an abundant use of the term revisionism. They are all well known for their endeavour to hide under the umbrella of regular historical studies and the associated processes of revisiting and updating. Other sites who counteracted negationism beliefs, were using the more inscribed sens of "Holocaust revisionism", often marking it as the starting point of a process that led their proponents to a more radical negationist position, thus and implicitly making a distinction between the two terms. In any way I was unable to find any mainstream historians who attributed to the term revisionism the full negative sens of negationism. Carlotm (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
re: who attributed to the term revisionism the full negative sens of negationism. - you got it upside down: negationism is a special case of (bad) revisionism, not vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You, Staszek Lem, wrote «when Holocaust denial is called "revisionism"». Anyway the current title implies the same equivalence too. Carlotm (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Carlotm, I do not agree with your arguments. Please read WP:NOTNEO and consider if your comment "; our duty is to be clear, understandable and unambiguous. That a word is a neologism, or it originates from a use by another language, does not speak much to me; I would say it's totally irrelevant." is inside or outside of policy?. Also please consider the implications of this letter Japan, Korea and Textbook History published in the NYT in 2014. Presumably the "consul general of South Korea" (in New York?) is following what he believes to be common usage when he writes "it is quite inappropriate to compare South Korea’s textbook publishing procedures with Japan’s historical revisionism. ... Japan has yet to show sincere remorse for its crimes against humanity committed during colonial rule and the wars of aggression of its imperial era". Now it may be that consul general of South Korea has been influenced by the British media but that would not be surprising if it were so as the news media based in London (for example The Economist and the Financial Times have a large and influential international readership). -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

All said, I am unable to fully understand why you don't see the inherent inequality in meaning of the two terms in the current title, thus willing to keep this perfect title we currently have. Carlotm (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Textbooks[edit]

I removed this subsection from "Textbooks" as this is off topic for the section. The statement is about the commission, not about textbooks. It has also been challenged:

Russia

References

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It looked like an absolute mess as it was. Probably for the best this way. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical deletion[edit]

Please see a related discussion about a likely fork term at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#Category:Historical_deletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Damnatio_memoriae#Similar_practices_in_other_societies[edit]

Many examples listed there are not really related to the Roman concept, and should be merged here. Further, this article can probably use a section in examples on Damnatio_memoriae. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It might be OK to merge them, as long as these two concepts are not improperly conflated. As far as I know, damnatio memoriae is different from other forms of historical negationism because it usually involves the destruction of historical records and artifacts. Jarble (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Historical negationism. Legitimate concerns by PBS, Staszek Lem and K.e.coffman notwithstanding, I find the arguments for move to be slightly prevailing, so I'll try to address them briefly: No such user (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • There is an unfortunate real-life ambiguity between neutral historical revisionism and the subject of this article, denialism/negationism, also most commonly referred to as "historical revisionism".
  • Both in this debate and in previous ones, multiple editors found the title "Historical revisionism (negationism)" as seriously lacking, being 1) unclear 2) contrary to our usual disambiguating principles – we don't use (near-)synonyms for distinction...
  • ...instead, WP:NATURAL stipulates Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names., where "negationism" purportedly qualifies.
  • PBS objects to "negationism" as a WP:NEO, but there is evidence that the word has been taking up in English, as the ngram and book searches below demonstrate. It may not be prevalent, but is hardly "obscure or made-up" and its meaning is self-evident. Besides, it has been used as the disambiguator so far.
  • Staszek Lem's objections over scope creep were noted, but they cannot be solved by choice of one title over another anyway, particularly as the scope of "historical revisionism" as defined now has been questioned, above.
  • While "negationism" is more often used without a qualifier, WP:PRECISE concerns below were sufficient to select Historical negationism as the title.

Historical revisionism (negationism)negationism or historical negationism – this redirects here already but it's the proper term for what this actually is, a sub-group of revisionism which is negating, so why put the main title in parenthesis? Seems like obvious POV-pushing to imply all revisionism is negationism. Ranze (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 03:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Support — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons given above. But the proposer's thoughts regarding POV-pushing appear to be wrong. The move log suggests this title was chosen to differentiate it from the other types of revisionism described at historical revisionism. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wonder if Historical negationism wouldn't be better for clarity. Poeticbent talk 04:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I like this idea, the word negationism could be used in contexts outside of history. Ranze (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It's certainly not POV-pushing, but support. I also like Poeticbent's idea. GABgab 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There have been numerous discussion; please see talk archives, and this very talk page, too. One cannot move page without providing solid argument that the new title is better and disproving the arguments that the new title is wrong. While I agree that the title currently is not the best possible, my major argument is that "negationism" is only one of cases of illegitimate historical revisionism, therefore the renaming will unduly change the article scope. Two other major trends are (2) distorting/misrepresenting facts and (3) inventing new theories and using illegitimate/faulty argumentation in their support. My favorite for the latter case is Anatoly_Fomenko#Historical_revisionism. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree illegitimate forms exist outside negation but they don't belong on a page with negation anywhere in title, whether in front or parentheisized at end. Perhaps illegitimate historical revisionism or similar could list negation is I as the worst kind and then list whatever names might exist for other types? Ranze (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historical negationism – Spontaneously I would have supported the shorter Negationism but there are arguments in the talk archives that this word can be ambiguous when used alone in English (it is crystal clear in French). However the current title is unwieldy and very confusing, as it can be interpreted as "there are negationist views in historical revisionism" or "negationism is synonymous with historical revisionism", so that both sides can feel offended or misrepresented. We can make it a bit more WP:CONCISE while remaining WP:PRECISE with Historical negationism. This particular variant was suggested in previous discussions as well and received significant support, despite never being proposed directly. Maybe this can bring consensus? — JFG talk 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historical negationism after positive feedback. Negationism alone (as observed by Staszek Lem already) is not going to cut it in case the request goes through. Poeticbent talk 03:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Negationism, because that's what it is.. Carlotm (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Negationism will redirect to the more WP:PRECISE title Historical negationism, so there's no denying that "that's what it is" and at the same time readers will be better educated about the nuances of this topic. Much better than current situation where Negationism redirects to Historical revisionism covering lots of things which are not negationism. — JFG talk 06:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@JFG How do you think Negationism differs from Historical negationism as you must if you think the latter is more precise than the former? Also what do you think Negationism means and how does that differ from the illegitimate use of Historical revisionism? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Historical revisionism continues to be used in literature, while I've not really come across instances of "negationism" while researching Waffen-SS historical revisionism for the HIAG article. See for example, this sample section Revisionism: We can change history together from In the Tracks of Breivik: Far Right Networks in Northern and Eastern Europe]. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agree on the neologism rationale. See, for example, the book description of Past in the making: historical revisionism in Central Europe after 1989: "Historical revisionism, far from being restricted to small groups of 'negationists, ' has galvanized debates in the realm of recent history. The studies in this book range from general accounts of the background of recent historical revisionism to focused analyses of particular debates or social-cultural phenomena in individual Central European countries..." (Note that "negationists" is used in quotation marks). Link to the full description. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term Historical negationism is in common use therefore it is not a neologism. It can be found in over a hundred different books.[2] Poeticbent talk 03:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Poeticbent did you look at the books returned by your search? In fact far from showing it is a common term used in hundreds of different books you search returned precisely 37 books and not all of them reliable in this context (take for example the 34th book in the list as an extreme example Moon-o-theism, Volume II of II "This is volume two of a two-volume study of a war and moon god religion that was based on the Mideast moon god religion of Sin.")-- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @PBS: I think you refer to this part right?
    "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."
  • "against policy" is sorta strong when it is merely a "it is preferable" statement supporting the objection. Also: if you look below I cited a 2002 book using "historical negationism" and by comparison "Wikipedia" was coined in 2001, and Grindr in 2009. Ranze (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Andy M. Wang User:Ranze you ask "so why put the main title in parenthesis?". Read the talk archives as they explain why I added negationism as a disambiguator. It is not the main title (never was), but just an alternative to Historical revisionism (political) that caused even more confusion than negationism does. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    @PBS: It was Ranze who asked that in the original request. I simply procedurally relisted the discussion. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry my mistake (more hast less speed!). I have struck you name through. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per User:GeneralizationsAreBad. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I like historical negationism better now, switching my vote to this consensus. Ranze (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    @Ranze It is not a matter of what you like but a matter of usage in reliable sources (see WP:AT).
    1. What are the sources you are proposing for the change in name?
    2. This article scope is much wider than the French meaning of Negationism. For example if this name change were to take place where would you propose placing the information about the Soviet Union or Japan?
    -- PBS (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Historical negationism, as more WP:CONCISE than the original name, because "... (negationism)" is an inversion of how we do WP:DAB, and because "negationism" by itself is ambiguous (fails WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended discussion[edit]

@PBS: this ["historical negationism"] was the suggestion of other editors I was going along with so I figured they might have some. I was led to believe that the term negationism itself might apply to other issues besides that of history although I don't understand what yet. I guess if we can't confirm any non-historical "negationism" then prefixing the term with "historical" would not be necessary.

I notice in the body of this article terms like "historical negation" and "historical negationist" and "historical negationism" are used in the "Purposes" section. This led me to think sources supported this kind of phrasing.

Find sources: ""historical negationism"" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

I can see a lot of sources which use this full phrase. Enough to at least qualify it for WP:NATDAB even if "negationism" in isolation is more frequent, if we need to disambiguate to some other non-historical form. Example:

Yeʼor, Bat (2002). Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. 
  • page 10 Historical Negationism and the Andalusian Myth 316
  • page 23 The contemporary historical negationism in India, with the collusion of Hindu politicians, is discussed in detail by Koenraad Elst in his book on this subject.
  • page 310 This historical negationism, inherent in the Islamic doctrine which gives Islam temporal precedence over Judaism and Christianity, disturbs tehe religious identification of the Christian dhimmis and of the European and Arab Christian

That's just picking one, can cite others if there's an issue with it in particular supporting the existence of the phrase for at least 14 years. Ranze (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Also re: PBS's concerns – How are the Soviet and Japanese cases not covered by "historical negationism"? They seem to be qualify for both words. That said, I do no wonder whether Historical denialism might not be a better title, given that the prominent case for most readers his Holocaust denialism (we have that article at Holocaust denial for some reason, which sounds like an article on a particular denial of the Holocaust, rather than the actual organized "ism" to deny that the Holocaust occurred, but maybe I'm splitting hairs).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The change of name does not address the fact that negationism is a neologism. Ranze you says it is common, but the search by Poeticbent returned 37 books (check out the 3rd page returned). This is a very small sample. If one searches in the UK domain using David Irving to make the search return only illegitimate historical revisionism the the numbers returned are telling:

The term illegitimate "historical revisionism" is far more common than "historical negationism" when associated with Irving, by all searches.

User:SMcCandlish Falsification of history can happen both ways, it is not just denialism. Take for example David Irving's book The Destruction of Dresden for about a quarter of a century his book was widely read treated as accurate history by the general public. But in it he falsified the reports on the number of dead, and despite numerous editions he has not rectified the numbers. In his case it may be that he did this to try to imply that the Holocaust while bad was not uniquely so and that the Western Allies also committed mass murder. However he may have been motivated by pecuniary returns. A popular history book about a well known and written about subject, only tends to make the best seller lists if it contains controversial facts or opinions. Many charlatans, who have later been shown to be so, have used this technique to make money, and are often tempted be less than an objective historian while cashing in. Another example is the use of history in propaganda, where a national myth is built up to justify contemporary regimes, or political systems. So while historical negationism is a subset of illegitimate historical revisionism, it is only a subset. We had an article called Negationism which was collapsed into this one in February 2006‎ and I do not consider it necessary to fork them into two articles. -- PBS (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: Right, but if we already have an article at Historical revisionism and would now have one at Historical negationism instead of the present odd title, what's not covered by one or the other? It's this just a split clean-up job? I feel like I must be missing something obvious.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hence the reason for the dab extension Historical revisionism is the legitimate change in an historical paradime, see for example English Civil War#Historiography and explanations. This confusion between legitimate historical revisionism and illegitimate historical revisionism, is often confusing both for the layman and the professional historian. Hence the reason why Some British tabloids jumped on Jörg Friedrich statement that he was a revisionist historian. He presumably meant that his book on the WWII bombing of Germany was a legitimate attempt to overthrow the accepted view, while the British press used it to tar him with the same brush as Irving (see for example Germany's forgotten victims, The Guardian, 2003). -- PBS (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about Ferdinand Marcos Burial to justify Martial Law?[edit]

Can Marcos Loyalists make historical negationism about atrocities of Marcos and Martial Law? 124.106.143.54 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source identifying this incident as an example of historical negationism? Thanks, GABgab 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Historical negationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Historical negationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)