Template talk:Falsification of history

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

delete this template[edit]

I think that this template is already a POV nightmare and is wide open to be an abuse of WP:BLP. --PBS (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would keep that one but consider moving to Template:Falsification of history. The term Falsification of history redirects to the article Historical revisionism (negationism). Yet, in my view, the term Falsification of history is wider. The label historical revisionism is more often associated with Holocaust denial, not so much Soviet fabrications, e.g. Holodomor denial. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll move it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The British Government does not recognise the Armenian genocide as a genocide it recognises it as a crime against humanity (which it has done since 1915), that does not make the British government a revisionist organisation. Further this template placed on the biography of a living person can not be sourced and as such is a breach of WP:BLP. --PBS (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Governments (or organisations for that matter) are not listed in the template, so that's bit of a straw man argument. Martintg (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue of particular legal classification of the Armenian genocide is a separate issue from denying that the events commonly called Armenian genocide happened in the first place. This template is about falsification of facts of history, not about differences in their interpretation. Interpretations can vary; they can be subject to radically different POVs -- but facts are the same for everybody. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Denial that it was a genocide is what the term "Denial of the Armenian genocide" means. Whether that is for legal interpretation, or a denial of the facts is why this is far too complicated a subject to have in a footnote template. --PBS (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Another example is the link Holodomor (Denial of the Holodomor) one can accept that huge numbers of people died in the famine without accepting that the Soviet government caused the famine as genocidal policy which is the position of the Russian Government (see Genocides in history#Soviet Union and Holodomor genocide question) to list it under falsification of history. This is again a very complicated topic to be grouped up nto a "Falsification of history" footnote template. --PBS (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it is a complicated topic. However Denial of the Holodomor is not about denying it was genocide (that is covered in Holodomor genocide question), but denying that a famine took place at all. While the Russian Government doesn't deny the existence of the famine, the Soviet Government certainly did. Martintg (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this template? It looks to me as if it is being used in a biased way to link all sorts of articles together and as a way to bypass the restrictions on WP:BLP "No I am not accusing this person of being a falsifier this template is just a useful navigation aid." --PBS (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The template was originally called "Template:Historical revisionism (negationism)" before it was moved to this current title. In my view I think I prefer the original title, since "Falsification of history" implies a narrower meaning in the sense of an Orwellian rewriting of historical facts that was practiced during Stalin's time. On the other hand, historical revisionism is more to do with re-interpreting (or even disputing) historical facts. Martintg (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Having myself initially expressed the idea of moving, I think, too, that we need a broader consensus. Any other suggestions as to the future title? --Miacek (t) 11:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
How about "Genocide disputes", accurate and NPOV. Izzedine (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I have removed Denial of the Nanking Massacre as few agree it was a genocide. But this is a general problem which reading the introduction to the Genocide denial makes clear:
Where there is near universal agreement that a genocide occurred, genocide denial is usually considered a form of illegitimate historical revisionism. However, in circumstances where the event in dispute is not seen to constitute genocide by the majority of scholars, the use of the term may be an ad hominem by those who argue that a genocide occurred.
In articles one can simply use the formula suggested in the WP:NPOV policy section "A simple formulation", but here one has to make an editorial judgement about what the majority position is as to whether to include an article link or not. This has the potential for endless POV edit wars. No one yet has explained what the function of this template and if that in their opinion outweighs the real likelihood of its abusive use. I will nominate this template for deletion unless this issue is seriously discussed here and a consensus can be reached. --PBS (talk)

Samizdat and tamizdat[edit]

Should samizdat and tamizdat be mentioned in this template? On one hand, they're not examples of falsification of history; on another, the very necessity of these forms of underground publication are causally related to Soviet falsification of history (and many other topics) for ideological purposes. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


I am not quite sure what was the reason for deletion of these links. Indeed, most of the Soviet historiography served exclusively for the purpose of Soviet propaganda, and as such is no different from the Lysenkoism. Let's keep it there.Biophys (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A random attack of violence, probably. Everybody even passingly familiar with Soviet views of history understands that Soviet scientists could only study history accurately up to the late medieval era. This might be why so many Russian people with talent for history have studied the Viking culture, Byzantine history and South America's pre-Columbian cultures, and so few have studied modern history. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Falsification of history is not Historical revisionism[edit]

From the history of the page

  • 17:50, 9 July 2009 Russavia (moved Template talk:Falsification of history to Template talk:Historical revisionism over redirect: npov)
  • 20:05, 9 July 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (moved Template talk:Historical revisionism to Template talk:Falsification of history over redirect: reverted move. Historical revisionism is not the falsification of history)

--PBS (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think that this template should be deleted. --PBS (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The title abuses the term "falsification".[edit]

Properly, falsifiability refers to the fundamental principle that scientific theories shall be possible to disprove. Since most countries passed their first laws against holocaust denial in the 1970s, there was plenty of time to falsify, and yet falsification failed, validating that holocaust really happened. A scientific term shall not be used to describe pseudoscientific bullshit. The whole template should be merged with some genocide denial category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed Vladimir Žerjavić[edit]

I don't think Vladimir Žerjavić can reasonably be described as a "revisionist" or a "denier".

Žerjavić's WWII Yugoslav casualty figures have been rather closely matched by Bogoljub Kočović (who seems to be absent from this list), and have since gained mainstream acceptance. Today, it is generally accepted that Yugoslav WWII casualties were significantly lower than 1.7 million, and - in particular - that much fewer than 700,000 have been killed in Jasenovac.

Apart from that, while a typical revisionist invariably has a political agenda, I'm not aware of any such topics in Žerjavić's works - he was a demographer, and as far as I can tell, his published works generally stick to demographics, without delving into politics or ideology.

I'm not sure what's the criterion for this list, but I don't think simply putting there everyone who has ever been called a "denier" is acceptable. GregorB (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)