Talk:Historical negationism: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30) |
|||
| (514 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talkheader}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Jewish history}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject History|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{Archive box|[[Talk:negationism/Archive 1|negationism]], [[Talk:Historical revisionism (political)/Archive1|1]], [[Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)/Archive 2|2]], [[Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)/Archive 3|3]], [[Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)/Archive 4|4]] |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 8 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(90d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Historical negationism/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|||
|target=/Archive index |
|||
|mask1=/Archive <#> |
|||
|mask2=Talk:negationism/Archive 1 |
|||
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== Photos of Lenin speaking == |
|||
The two photos of Lenin speaking at a meeting in Sverdlov Square actually appear to be two different photos taken at different times. Many people, including Lenin, are in different positions. It's possible, but unlikely, that Trotsky and Kamenev were just never in the second photo, having left or entered (depending on the order in which they were taken) between the two. [[Special:Contributions/71.82.5.145|71.82.5.145]] ([[User talk:71.82.5.145|talk]]) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: True. Giving two almost identical images and saying one is a manipulated version of the other is clearly manipulation in itself. I removed the example. [[User:Mlewan|Mlewan]] ([[User talk:Mlewan|talk]]) 08:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: Ok, the images somehow reappeared. If it is true that the second one really is a manipulation of something, I can see the purpose of it. However, I'm not sure I see the purpose of having an image it is not a manipulation of. [[User:Mlewan|Mlewan]] ([[User talk:Mlewan|talk]]) 15:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Negationism in India== |
|||
:See [[Talk:Historical_revisionism (negationism)/Archive 4#Deletions]] |
|||
What ever the rights or wrongs of the book ([[Koenraad Elst]] ''[[Negationism in India - Concealing the Record of Islam]]'' (1992). ISBN 81-85990-01-8 ) I think it is a useful example of the use of the word negationism. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 09:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Colonial and Imperial revisionism== |
|||
I think that this section should be moved into [[Historical revisionism]] if it belongs in either of the two articles. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The problem is that it is not clear who is a revisionist as I wrote in [[Talk:British Raj]] |
|||
:Given that the prevailing view in Western Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) before World War II on colonialism can be summed up in the phrase the [[White man's burden]] -- at which period since would you argue that "'empire' was a dark chapter of British and European history" was the dominant international paradigm to describe the history of all European colonialism and the British Raj in particular?[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABritish_Raj&diff=211645080&oldid=211642481] |
|||
:Given US actions in the Pacific, (Alaska, Philippians, Hawaii and smaller islands) I think shows that what ever the official US name for their behaviour they were engaged in colonialism. Their wriggling over naming their behaviour reminds me of the reaction of [[Wilfried Böse]] during the [[Entebbe Operation|Entebbe hostage crises]] "''When a Jewish hostage who had survived a concentration camp showed Bose his inmate registration number tattooed on his arm, Bose was indignant. I'm no Nazi! ...I am an idealist.''"[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915234-2,00.html] Or more recently when a French spokesman angered Australian public opinion by suggesting that Mururoa Atoll was part of France.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DA163BF934A1575BC0A963958260] However that is beside the point. From the postings above I do not think it is useful to call historians revisionist unless that is a label that they use to describe themselves because of the negative connotations it carries in British English and as far as I can tell we are describing a case of [[Russian doll]]s when using the term.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABritish_Raj&diff=211835578&oldid=211820775] |
|||
--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 09:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
"[[Historical revisionism|Revisionism]]", or rather, historical revision, is based on historical evidence and primary reasearch work and is a genuine part of academic and scholarly work in history. Negationism is reinterpretation in absence of or ingnoring evidence, and supporting that interpretation with views, eg, [[Counterfactual history]] to a large extent. Who is a revisionist (not just in the British Raj, but any other colonial enterprise) is addressed at length in the O'Day and the Gkotzaridis references. I have, in this, almost faithfully reproduced other authors' words and views, and have appropriately referenced these, including the views that the negationism shifts the balance of benefit from the colonial country to the colony. This is not to do with "evil" or "dark chapters" per se, but to do with (as the authors point out) reinterpretation of the entire period. The view prevailing in Western Europe before WWII is not what is being considered here. Rather, it is the interpretations and views of modern authors (which is adjudged by others as biased, deliberately incorrect, misleading and unsupported by evidence) that is the issue. I think it will be wrong to "label" anybody as revisionist and would border on accusation in a wikipedia article. What I wrote was that some authors have been "accused" ''by'' others of engaging in revisionism, which is what the references back up. I dont know if US is/was/will be a colonial power, so I am not willing to get into this discussion.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] '''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 10:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::You are laying this out as if there is one widely accepted position on colonialism that the authors you mention are trying to revise, yet the online sources you are providing are much more of a political stance (similar to the position that they accuse the other side as holding), that is not a NPOV. |
|||
::What do you base your assumption that this section should be in this article and not in the article [[Historical revisionism]]? --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 12:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The references to outlines and desciptions of what colonial negationism is are a book and a review in a historical journal (The American Historical review, published by the American historical association). Gkotzaridis for example says that the negationist views are based on less well-supported evidence, ''where'' such evidence is considered. The political articles and views you describe is described as such, ie, that it is the view of somebody that somebody else holds a negationist view. Moreover, as I have described above, Historical revisionism is a different thing and is a genuine academic discipline. Negationism by definition therefore does not belong in that article. What I am trying to say is that the authors are not the subject of this section. The topic of this section is a body of work that seeks to portray colonialism and colonial history in a more positive light. The names are mentioned, you will note, as authors whose works are held ''by'' others ~(and these others are mentioned by name as well) as negtaionist versions of history. [[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] '''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You have not provided any evidence that the historical [[paradigm]] over colonialism is the way round that the sources allege and as such the entry has a built in Bias in favour of the sources you cite. |
|||
:The article that is on line does not state that the Gkotzaridis means "negationism" what is your evidence that he does not mean historical revisionism (academic)? This is a biographic entry on living people and is therefor covered by [[WP:BOLP]] and unless you can provide a quote that the two authors mentioned are guilty of "negationism", then this entry should either be removed from Wikipedia or added to [[historical revisionism]] article. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Alan O'Day summarises in a peer reviewed journal that [www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/ahr.113.2.588 Gkotzaridis makes that opinion in the book]. I am not sure how much more sucicntly put it, but ''misinterpreting or interpretations unsupported by historical evidence does not constitute historical review or revisionism but negationism. Historical review is an outcome of historical research''. This is ''not'' a biographical entry, nor a [[Wikipedia:Coatrack#The_Criticism_Gambit|nor a Coatrack]]. It is mentioned that Rudyard Kipling's views are ascribed by some (as does his own Biographical entry) as apologist. In terms of the living people, the article does not say that the authors ''are negationist'', it says their woprks have been interpreteded (and references ''where the interpretations have been made'') by other noted commentators as negationist. Wikipedia is not making any allegations here at all.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] '''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 08:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Here are more uses the term negationist in context |
|||
*Donald C. Holsinger. The Journal of African History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1993), pp. 152-154. |
|||
*Cultured Force: Makers and Defenders of the French Colonial Empire. By Barnett Singer and John Langdon. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004. |
|||
*Algeria in France: Transpolitics, Race, and Nation. By Paul A. Silverstein. New Anthropologies of Europe. Edited by Daphne Berdahl, Matti Bunzl, and Michael Herzfeld. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004. Pp. xiii+284 |
|||
*Elizabeth Greenhalgh. Journal of Contemporary History 2005; 40; 601 |
|||
:You have put a statement in italics is that a quote? If so from whom and who is it describing? |
|||
:This is obviously not a biography page BUT [[WP:BOLP]] states (for legal reasons) "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." |
|||
:By publishing the information on this page we are drawing a conclusion by interpreting what the authors say (that the two historians mentioned are no better than David Irving) unless and the attacking historian specifically says that they are using revisionism with this meaning we should not include it on this page. It is safer by far to include it on the page [[historical revisionism]]. Further you have not yet come up with any evidence that the attacking historians represent the current historical paradigm on colonial history. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 08:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I am not sure I at all follow what you mean by Paradigm. If I am correct in interpreting what you mean, I believe most of the references I have just mentioned above should tell you what the interpretations are. I dont understand what you mean by comparing authors to David Irving, since that has not been suggested at all. Neither is the article saying they are negationists. What it says is that their work has been interpreted by these commentators as portraying a negationist of colonial history. May I suggest seeking a third party opinion, since we seem to be going in a circle here and I am not sure you at all see what I am trying to say.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] '''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Opinions from more editors would be welcome. If you read the section [[English Civil War#Theories relating to the English Civil War]] during the last 100 years there have been three views (schools of thought), of why the English Civil Wars were fought, the first view was dominant at the start of the century, the second in the middle of the century and the third towards the end. One can consider these views to have been the accepted [[paradigm]] when they were dominant and a [[paradigm shift]] occurred as the old dominant view was overthrown by a new view. During the paradigm shift many heated arguments take place, but none of this means that historical revisionism is necessarily negationism. So two points:(1) You have not produced any sources that state what the dominant paradigm over colonialism was/is at any particular time -- I think this is important because for well over 100 years there have been a range of views on colonialism from the extreme of "all bad" to the extreme of "all good", and it is not clear to me that the black and white view that you are painting were ever in the last 100 years the dominant paradigm. (2) it is not clear to me from the on line source you have given that the description is of negationism and not a disagreement between academics. For example are we really saying that the two historians have been using some of the methods described in the section [[Historical revisionism (negationism)#Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists|Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists]], which is how Richard Evans described David Irving as using. If we are then we ought to have specific quotes claiming such behaviour and not just a vague summary of an accusation. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I see what you mean by paradigm, and by all means I think engaging more editors will be very helpful. Of note the subsection covers similar if not the same grounds as the section on French laws above that subsection. As for paradigm views on colonialism given the fact that the article itself considers french laws and other stuffBut I have given you references, not online articles but peer-reviewed journal articles, of what colonialism negationism ism. I have given you a number of references now, and this seems to be getting pointless. I dont see where I have painted a black and white picture. If you are referring to "one of benefit of colonial power to one of benefit of the colonies", that is from the O'Day 2006 reference. I have added below a list of references, but I am not sure if you're disputing that colonialism had deeply unbeneficial and negative connotations attached to it and is viewed as such, or disputing that a school of thought or a body of work exists that disputes these negative connotations. If it is the former, then I am uncomfortable carrying on this discussion, and is moreover not the point of this article. |
|||
*Sociological Theories: Race and Colonialism. 1980. Unesco.ISBN:9231016350 |
|||
*African Perspectives on Colonialism By A. A. BoahenA. 1989. Johns Hopkins University Press.ISBN:0801834562 |
|||
*Perspectives on Africa: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation. R. R. Grinker and C. B. Steiner.1997. Blackwell Publishing.ISBN:1557866864 |
|||
*Culture and Politics: A Comparative Approach. J. Lane, S. O. Ersson. 2005. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN:0754645789 |
|||
*The Haunting Past: Politics, Economics and Race in Caribbean Life. A. O. Thompson. 1997. M.E. Sharpe.ISBN:0765600129 |
|||
*An Introduction to the Literature of Equatorial Guinea: Between Colonialism and Dictatorship. M. A. Lewis. 2007. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-8262-1713-4 |
|||
[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] '''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Coatrack == |
|||
I am afraid the article is blown out of proportions by adding more and more examples of revisionism. If an example is notable, and article must be created, and this article must be wikilinked, possibly with very brief summary. Otherwise a false impression is created that the article is big and good. when in fact it is not. IMO what is needed is a narrow,''general'' discussion of the topic. [[User:Laudak|Laudak]] ([[User talk:Laudak|talk]]) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Getting bombed== |
|||
I'm not sure if this falls under the definition, so let me ask if it merits inclusion. RCAF bomber crews have been trying to get an interpretation of [[Arthur Harris (RAF officer)|Harris]] as a butcher, & any portrayals or evidence of their bombing civilians, suppressed. Whatsay? Or is that something else? [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Soviet History? == |
|||
"Examples of historical revisionism (negationism) include: Japan's comfort women, Holocaust denial and Soviet history." |
|||
The first two examples are fine, but isn't it a bit much to say all of Soviet History is an example of historical revisionism? Can we get some specific examples? Or at least a hyperlink that doesn't go directly to a disambiguation page on the history of the Soviet Union?[[Special:Contributions/59.38.32.9|59.38.32.9]] ([[User talk:59.38.32.9|talk]]) 08:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps the soviet attempts to deny [[Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact]] and denial of cooperating with Nazi Germany when invading [[Soviet invasion of Poland#Censorship|Poland]]? Soviet Union told many lies so it should not be hard to pick one or two out. And I also think [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8058087.stm this] is a subject worth mentioning in this article. --[[User:Kyng|Kyng]] ([[User talk:Kyng|talk]]) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Another good example: [[Falsifiers of History]]. --[[User:Kyng|Kyng]] ([[User talk:Kyng|talk]]) 09:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Falsifiers of History isn't a particularly good example of historiography... its popular history. "Popular history in the Soviet Union" lacks the clout of a condemnation of Soviet Historiography, similarly... [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't know what you mean. Irving Books were Popular histories, yet we include them here. It is far more likely that historical revisionism of this type will appear in such books than in peer reviewed journals. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
=== The irrelevance of the Commissar Vanishes === |
|||
While the Commissar Vanishes is an excellent book, photodoctoring, and photoarchival work isn't Soviet Historiography. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I think photodoctoring it is relevant to this topic and should be included in this article. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. It's emblematic of Sov practise. And it's EZr to understand than asking readers to imagine cutting articles out of the ''Soviet Encyclopedia''. (Also, I can't source that. ;D) [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Again, Encyclopedia's aren't historiography. Two things irritate me with this. One is the rhetorical action of using a picture unrelated to history as practiced by historians in the Soviet Union, which creates an assumption that all historians in the Soviet Union were universally corrupt. Secondly the mischaracterisation of the historical profession as photographers and encyclopedists. I suggest rewriting to create a clear divide between Soviet Historiography and popular histories of the Soviet Communist Party in the section. If no-one objects, I'll move forward with this. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::It isn't the encyclopedia that's the issue, it's the '''censorship'''. And both are examples of it. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 14:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Neither the encyclopedia blacking (mentioned in Commissar Vanishes), or the reproduction of photographs in Newspapers or Magazines are the production of history by historians. The rhetorical claim that popular history was corrupt; thus, academic history was corrupt is pretty back door. It would be like doing a review of coffee table books of Britons at war, and condemning Oxbridge historians on that basis. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Notice the page is not "Soviet historiography", nor indeed historiography of any description, but "Historical revisionism"...which is to say, the methods & tendencies to '''abuse''' historiography. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 03:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Historiography_in_the_USSR_and_its_successor_states]]. Would you care to revise that statement in light of reading the article? [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::No, actually, since these are meant as examples of '''revisionism''', not examples of '''historiography'''. On the [[Soviet historiography]] page, you'd be right. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 03:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== "Suffering of the Axis populations" == |
|||
"They do this by downplaying its scale and whitewashing other Nazi war crimes while '''emphasizing the suffering of the Axis populations at the hands of the Allies and stating or implying that the Allies committed war crimes as well'''." |
|||
The sentence in bold should probably be rewrote, it seems to imply that Axis populations did not suffer during WWII, or that the Allies never committed questionable acts during WWII. |
|||
I don't think that emphasizing the suffering of Axis civilians during, say, the bombing of Dresda or Hiroshima, qualifies as "negationism". I do believe in the Holocaust but I believe that bombing Hiroshima was a war crime, too... that makes me a "negationist"? --[[User:Lupo1982|Lupo1982]] ([[User talk:Lupo1982|talk]]) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Ataturk == |
|||
The polices, who took a photo with the assassin, they were punished. I, also, can't stand anyone to backbite or speak ill of [[Ataturk]]. |
|||
The situation about the polices should be written in the article with sources. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Holy Penguin|Holy Penguin]] ([[User talk:Holy Penguin|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Holy Penguin|contribs]]) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Nuts == |
|||
At 08:44, 1 March 2009 Philip Baird Shearer [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism_(negationism)&diff=274092443&oldid=273921700 reverted] a painful and long-overdue cleanup of the lead with the comment "<span style="color:gray;">It is imortant to note that negationism is a word little used in English.</span>"<br />Since Philip Baird Shearer is evidently unfamiliar with [[WP:REVERT|normal editing procedures]], and was oblivious to the fact that "not[ing that a word] is little used in English" warrants an addition of content, not a blanket revert, I have accordingly reinstated the cleanup, and added all of four words (how amazing!) that ought to allow Philip Baird Shearer to sleep better now. -- [[User:Fullstop|Fullstop]] ([[User talk:Fullstop|talk]]) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Congratulations == |
|||
On making the most biased, anti-NPOV article I've ever seen. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.115.53.129|24.115.53.129]] ([[User talk:24.115.53.129|talk]]) 05:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Yes it is. Shows more about who really runs this place and is one the many reasons that I've basically given up on Wikipedia except for entertainment value. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.190.82.48|58.190.82.48]] ([[User talk:58.190.82.48|talk]]) 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I agree, we quite obviously need to replace Wikipedia with something honest. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.46.214.106|142.46.214.106]] ([[User talk:142.46.214.106|talk]]) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Yes, agreed. The article begin by distinguishing between legitimate revisionism, which is supported by references, statistics and arguments, and denial or negationism which is not. But the examples, in effect, define as denial any revisionism the current writer doesn't like, regardless of how thoroughly the case is presented. [[Special:Contributions/89.240.53.95|89.240.53.95]] ([[User talk:89.240.53.95|talk]]) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed re-titling and cleanup == |
|||
It strikes me that much of this article is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Several paragraphs appear to have no other function but to demonize certain sections of the scholarly community. Historical revisionism, for example, is lumped in with 'Holocaust denial' (whatever that is), with no serious attempt to summarise the arguments of either camp. There is nowhere the pretense of impartiality, as far as I can see. |
|||
I propose re-titling this article to 'Historical Negationism' in order to avoid confusion with the already-existing article 'Historical Revisionism'. Better, of course, would be to delete this article altogether, but failing that... |
|||
Much of the language, style and level of discourse is inappropriate to an encyclopedic entry. Extensive copyediting and cutting for concision and disambiguation is required. In short, the writing and organisation as it currently stands is a shambles. |
|||
I propose to make a start on this when I have some time, since no one else appears to have applied themselves seriously to the task. |
|||
Ideas, dissent, comments? |
|||
[[User:Forcough|Forcough]] ([[User talk:Forcough|talk]]) 03:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:I suggest you review the discussion archives for this article and the Historical Revision article before you attempt a name change. The purpose of this article, IMO, is not to " demonize certain sections of the scholarly community" but to point out examples of those folks outside of the "scholarly community" who masquerade as scholars. [[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] ([[User talk:North Shoreman|talk]]) 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Forcough]] Which demonize group on this page do you consider scholarly? "Negationism" is not very widely used in the English and we name pages according to the [[WP:NC|Naming conventions]]. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 15:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
I came here searching some informatión about "revisionism", and I found this article that talks about "negacionism". I read the previous answer but I cant find it. '''¿Why this confusing title and not only "negacionism" or "historical negacionism"?'''. Its make very dificult to use the wiki article as an argument in a discussion because anyone can search and find this. --[[User:Ignium|Ignium]] ([[User talk:Ignium|talk]]) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Information is spelt with an o instead of an ó in English. Negationism takes a t not a c in English. Sentences which are questions don't begin with an inverted question mark in English. I think you were missing a "not" or another negation in your final phrase. "Historical revisionism" is a legitimate practice engaged in by most, if not all practising historians in good academic standing. Historical revisionism is readdressing past judgements. There is also a practice by non-historians and non-scholars, who deny past events while claiming they're engaging in revising lies about the past. The second practice is also called Historical revisionism. Following wikipedia's naming policies, the first article gets the primary name, the second is disambiguated with the qualifier (negationism), as this is its primary feature: a denial about the past as agreed by the consensus of scholarly debate. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 03:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: Is here any reference saying that the second practice "Negation" is also called "Historical revisionism"? Because if not, we are creating the ambiguity here, in the wiki. Sorry for my poor english. I can understand it well, but write... --[[User:Ignium|Ignium]] ([[User talk:Ignium|talk]]) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::: Footnotes 2 and 3 address this point. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 07:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::A Google search on [revisionist David Irving site:uk] returns dozens of articles eg: |
|||
::*[[The Times]]: [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5799457.ece Holocaust-denial Bishop Richard Williamson takes flight to Britain as expulsion threat looms] February 25, 2009. "Richard Williamson, who converted to Roman Catholicism as a young man, has contacted the revisionist historian David Irving, asking how to present his views on the Holocaust without arousing controversy, The Times has learnt." "She found lawyers to defend the Australian Frederick Toben after he was arrested at Heathrow last October at the request of the German authorities for publishing “anti-Semitic and/or revisionist” material on an internet site." |
|||
::*[[The Independent]]: [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/racist-antisemite-holocaust-denier-how-history-will-judge-david-irving-720871.html Racist. Anti-Semite. Holocaust denier. How history will judge David Irving] 12 April 2000 "The revisionist historian David Irving is facing ruin..." |
|||
::*[[The Guardian]]: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright David Irving jailed for Holocaust denial] 20 February 2006, "The British revisionist historian and Nazi apologist David Irving was today sentenced to three years in prison after he admitted denying the Holocaust." |
|||
::*[[The Daily Telegraph]]: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/austria/1503334/Irving-held-in-Austria-for-denying-Holocaust.html Irving held in Austria for denying Holocaust] 18 November 2005. "The British revisionist historian David Irving has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust" |
|||
::--[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 07:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Historical revisionism in Pakistani textbooks == |
|||
I do not think this section [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism_(negationism)&oldid=297700281 as it is written at the moment] is useful, it mixes up two things. |
|||
The first is a national bias, something that all/most the school book on the history of any nation do. For example the articles in Wikipedia on the [[history of the computer#Digital computation|history of the electronic computer]], the [[history of the telephone]] and the [[history of television]], must come as a real eye opener to many British and American readers, as the histories of both countries tend to emphasise their own national contributions in these areas while downplaying the those of other nations. |
|||
The second is historical revisionism as used in this article which is described in by Richard J. Evans in [[Historical revisionism (negationism)#Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists]]. |
|||
A third point is that the use of the term may be an ''[[ad hominem]]'' by those who disagree with the view of history presented in Pakistani textbooks, to undermine those books without any evidence presented that it involves the techniques as described by Evans. (We don't like the Pakistan's view on history so it must be an historical revisionist view). |
|||
Unless the section is rewritten to make these POVs clear I think we should delete the section. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::The same argument can be extended to the anti-India links cited in the article as well. I find it interesting that those edits are aggressively warred into the article, whereas the exhaustively sourced material on Pakistan are promptly removed.[[Special:Contributions/70.112.205.8|70.112.205.8]] ([[User talk:70.112.205.8|talk]]) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::What anti-India links are cited in the article? --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 11:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::The IP above is banned user [[user:Hkelkar|Hkelkar]]. The other IP on this talk page (86.xx.xx.xx) is banned user [[user:Nangparbat|Nangparbat]]. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] </span><sub>([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]])</sub> 15:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Historical revisionism and artistic reputations == |
|||
I am not sure that this section covers negationism rather than legitimate historical revisionism. [[user:AlbertSM]] lease explain why it is negationism. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Pseudohistory]] == |
|||
Is there any real difference between [[pseudohistory]] and [[Historical revisionism (negationism)]]? Please see my post at [[Talk:Pseudohistory#Historical_revisionism_.28negationism.29]]. [[User:Green Cardamom|Green Cardamom]] ([[User talk:Green Cardamom|talk]]) 14:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==OSCE== |
|||
This article seems to be pretty biased in favour of western views. It has no examples at all of western revisionism when there are plenty. I added one example of the recent OSCE move to equate Nazism to Stalinism and blame them both equally for the start of WWII. I think this should stay in the article for NPOV purposes. Even if you disagree with Russia's objection, it's still in stark contrast with most accepted history, and it's still an attempt to change history even though it's not based on any new or recently discovered historic documents or findings. And on the other hand, even if you think certain things in this article are clear examples of historic revisionism, there will be many Japanese, Russian etc.. historians who disagree with you. But they don't have a right to delete content they disagree with, just as you don't. [[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT|talk]]) 20:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
(MOVED FROM LokiiT's TALK PAGE) |
|||
:You reverted my edit in [[Historical revisionism (negationism)]] by comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism_(negationism)&curid=26092&diff=304345110&oldid=304337413] "the OSCE story has nothing to do with the historic truth commission, and restoring npov edits, please be careful with the revert button". Please, do not make threats. I have no choice, but revert your edit for two reasons: a) Your OSCE russian delegation -comments are more news flash than improvement of the article b) Your edit is not NPOV, as you promote this pro-Kremlin project (glorify Stalin, deny the [[occupation of the Baltic states]] etc.) and those views are not very wide supported outside Russia (I wonder why...). I suggest you either merge your edits to article [[Historical Truth Commission]], start new article or write to Wikinews. [[User:Peltimikko|Peltimikko]] ([[User talk:Peltimikko|talk]]) 20:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::That wasn't a threat, I'm sorry it came off that way. I was just asking you to be careful not to revert entire edits when you only mean to change a few parts, because you ended up undoing some npov word changes and fixes to the paragraph that was already on the page. Also I most certainly did not glorify Stalin or deny the occupation of the Baltic states, that accusation is entirely unfounded and I have no idea what would make you come to that conclusion. Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_revisionism_(negationism)&diff=304352336&oldid=304351320 this] carefully, the top paragraph changes. How on Earth does that glorify Stalin or deny the occupation of the Baltic states? That's utter nonsense, those changes were made to reflect what the article itself says. As for your "news flash" comment, the same thing could be said for the entire "modern Russia" section. It's all based on recent "news flash" events.[[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT#top|talk]]) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::And of course it gets removed again for some bogus reason that makes no sense whatsoever. The pro-west mob has spoken, I shall argue no further. [[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT|talk]]) 07:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Problem with the "David Irving" Reference == |
|||
The reference to "Malte Herwig The Swastika Wielding Provocateur in Der Spiegel 16 January 2006" |
|||
Is broke. There is the link I found in Internet. |
|||
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,395810,00.html |
|||
But I can´t edit. |
|||
In other way. I read the two diary articles and not find anithing about ''a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history"''or |
|||
''the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories''. |
|||
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6 |
|||
Is a much better referentce (It appears in [[David Irving]]) so I propose change the two for this |
|||
--[[User:Ignium|Ignium]] ([[User talk:Ignium|talk]]) 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Title of the topic. "Historical revisionism (negationism)"== |
|||
{{rfctag|hist}} |
|||
About the confusion between this and the article "Historical revisionism" —[[User:Ignium|Ignium]] <small>(via [[User:RFC posting script|posting script]])</small> 19:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
'''Merged with my previous comment''' |
|||
Reading the archive I found that the problem about the title comes from 2006, and there, exist a discussion about the same point. |
|||
One of the most repeated point was the rules of Wikipedia naming conventions of who I quote: |
|||
If the article's subject has no evident name, a concise, recognizable and neutral description is used instead. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources |
|||
An one of the answers I received was. |
|||
TThere is also a practice by non-historians and non-scholars, who deny past events while claiming they're engaging in revising lies about the past. '''The second practice is also called Historical revisionism'''. Following wikipedia's naming policies, the first article gets the primary name, the second is disambiguated with the qualifier (negationism), |
|||
When I question about the references for say that, I get Footnotes 2 and 3. |
|||
The footnote two, of the UNESCO, says "historical negationism" and "revisionism" don´t appear in entire text. The footnote three, the page 33 of "The unmaking of fascist aesthetics - By Kriss Ravetto" Only explains the tendence of historans of confuse "relativism" with "revisionism". Pointing that as a mistake. |
|||
The two footnotes don´t say anything about "The second practice is also called Historical revisionism" |
|||
I quote one of our references |
|||
"Crucial to understanding and combating Holocaust denial is a clear distinction between denial and revisionism. One of the more insidious and dangerous aspects of contemporary Holocaust denial, a la Arthur Butz, Bradley Smith and Greg Raven, is the fact that they attempt to present their work as reputable scholarship under the guise of 'historical revisionism.' The term 'revisionist' permeates their publications as descriptive of their motives, orientation and methodology. In fact, Holocaust denial is in no sense 'revisionism,' it is denial... Contemporary Holocaust deniers are not revisionists |
|||
Here we can read that the Denial or Negationist is a kind of fake historical revisionism |
|||
Other quote: |
|||
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 (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, '''on the other hand''', rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence. |
|||
This quotes show that "negationism" or "denial" are quite different of "revisionism" and point the importance of mark this concept. |
|||
In watch of this, and knowing that the Wikipedia is, at 2009, the first page that appear a in web search, we are in a noncense letting the confusioon of an a disambiguation that looks as a synonymous. |
|||
== Croatia == |
|||
Browsing some recent edits I've noticed usage of non existing sources or misrepresenting of sources by very liberal misquoting. |
|||
'''¿Proposals?''' |
|||
Perception on historical negationism in Croatia during the 90's should be put in right context. [[Operation Labrador]] was a false flag operation carried out by the Yugoslavian Counterintelligence Service (KOS) during the early stages of the [[Croatian War of Independence]]. It was devised as a series of terrorist attacks intended to create an image of Croatia as a pro-fascist state. Operation Labrador was complemented by Operation Opera — a propaganda campaign devised by the KOS to feed disinformation to the media. This was added and sourced but one user deleted it. |
|||
'''Negationism.''' "the guideline is specifically to use the unambiguous name when the most common name is unavailable. This clearly has nothing to do with "national varieties of English"; it's just a difference between popular and academic writing. There are a number of references for "negationism" and "negationist on on JSTOR," - Pharos - 2006 |
|||
Unfortunately this practice is continued by Republice of [[Serbia]] to derail the focus on Serbian denial of [[Bosnian genocide]] and [[The Holocaust in Serbia]]. View edits by users Sadko and Griboroski. |
|||
I can´t contribute more, and there was no answer for this. |
|||
On Croatian-Israeli relationships after [[Franjo Tuđman]] changed some of controversial facts in his book. More can be found here (prof. Klasić, in Croatian). <ref> https://www.jutarnji.hr/magazin/kako-je-doslo-do-renesanse-odnosa-hrvatske-i-izraela-ljubav-se-razvila-prije-dvije-godine-nakon-poteza-hrvatske-kojeg-u-tel-avivu-nisu-zaboravili/7662939/ </ref> |
|||
'''Fake historical revisionism (Negationism)''' Fake can be any word that means "false". This englobes much better the concept of the misunderstand. |
|||
https://www.jutarnji.hr/magazin/kako-je-doslo-do-renesanse-odnosa-hrvatske-i-izraela-ljubav-se-razvila-prije-dvije-godine-nakon-poteza-hrvatske-kojeg-u-tel-avivu-nisu-zaboravili/7662939 |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
'''Pseudo historical revisionism (Negationism)''' Idem |
|||
==Australia and the United States== |
|||
Or these, but reverting the words. |
|||
In the past year, editors have added in: |
|||
--[[User:Ignium|Ignium]] ([[User talk:Ignium|talk]]) 19:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* The American bombing of [[Historical_negationism#War_crimes|Hiroshima and Nagasaki]]. |
|||
:Also see the section above [[#Proposed re-titling and cleanup]] |
|||
* The [[History wars|Australian history wars]]. |
|||
* Debate on whether the American treatment of indigenous people in California amounts to "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". As per 2023, the matter [https://online.ucpress.edu/ch/article-abstract/100/2/4/196102/The-California-Indian-Scalp-Bounty-MythEvidence-of is "contentious" within the literature], according to ''Magliari (2023)''. |
|||
As examples of denialism or negationism. Yet all of these things are either not denied by anyone (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or simply debates on terminology on things [https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Native_American_History_poll_results.pdf essentially everyone agrees are crimes against humanity]. It seems somewhat apples-to-oranges to me to compare these things in ''intent'' or ''influence'' to denying the Holocaust, or the Armenian genocide, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and the clean ''Wehrmacht'' myth. Tagging, {{ping|Roger 8 Roger}}. |
|||
:Negationism is not a common name in English. Historical revisionism is. It is quite easy to find lots of other sources which use Historical revisionism as it is used in this article, for example see [http://www2.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol5_2/oh_grbi.htm footnote 37] of the article. Now it may be in the future that if negationism becomes more common we could move the article, but at the moment historical revisionism is far more common a term. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
What do you think? I recently cut a lot of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical%20negationism&diff=1217465633&oldid=1216622016 this stuff out of the article]. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: I read the entire archive before do this but thanks for the help. |
|||
:Not sure what you mean? Do you agree with my edit or not? [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Searching in Google I found 159K matches for "Historical revisionism", and 116K for "negationism" Remembering that "Historical revisionism" could come to refer to two meanings, the first number is not defing. |
|||
::I support your late March edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_negationism&diff=1214922751&oldid=1214920076 here], yes. I was referring to how a similar problem in happening in pages surrounding the [[United States]]. Editors are wrongly labeling things "denialist" that are debated within mainstream historiography. |
|||
::In other hand, the example you posted is against the mere concept of "historical revisionism" and, in that case, it must been in the proper article of "historical revisionism" and not in this mere fake case. |
|||
:: |
::(e.g. Claiming that "ethnic cleansing" is denialist when it's a majority position within the literature.) [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::Forgot to tag, {{ping|Roger 8 Roger}}. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 02:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ok, thanks. My latest removal, in its entirety, of the NZ section was because it was pointless. There is currently a 'pro-Maori' view throughout NZ that affects society in many different ways. The part I removed was wrapped up in that thinking. If there was genocide in NZ, it was in the [[Moriori genocide]] on the Chatham Islands in 1835 when a group of Maori invaded and annihilated them all (they were pacifist so it was easy. This was before Europeans had settled there). If they weren't killed they died of disease. The last full blooded Moriori died in 1933 or thereabouts. Whether the Maori invaders intended to kill off the whole race I don't know, but it happened. Although on a small scale, I think that better fits the description of genocide than a fringe theory about what happened in human history in NZ pre-1200, if anything did at all. NZ pre-history began around 1250 with the arrival of Polynesians, who became Maori, and who did not write so kept no written record. This was much later than elsewhere in the world. I agree about denialism - there was no denial of anything in NZ - there might have been a view that there were pre-Maori people there, but that was based on a lack of evidence, not on an intention to label Maori artificially as inferior. The part I think may have been genocide by Maori, ie about the Moriori, is now played down, I think because it sits uncomfortably with the pro-Maori approach being taken. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't know enough about the situation to say, {{ping|Roger 8 Roger}}. I'm a Hispanic dude from Wisconsin, lol. :P [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::All good!:) We probably agree on the same underlying principle but use different examples. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 05:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Do you [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Historical_negationism&diff=1217464633&oldid=1216622016 agree with me that the California genocide debate doesn't belong in the article] + the Australian [[history wars]] doesn't belong either? I definitely think this is another section that shouldn't be in the article. A lot of these articles (since 2016) have become entangled in Anglophonic [[history wars]] surrounding race, gender, and sexuality, and it comes across as [[WP: POV]] pushing, even if it's done with the best of intentions. |
|||
:::::::Of course, I'm somewhat of an oddball in this. Most people who are considered "left-wing" in the United States generally support [[Keynesian economics]] and a sort of gender, race, and sexuality-focused (at least past the mid-2010s) or so historiographical view of the United States. I'm heavily influenced by [[historical materialism]] (or at least the material conditions within society) and see much of this history through economic lines and class. In my mind: one is much more threatening to the upper class than the other. (e.g. Endless debates over race, gender, and sexuality v. economic redistribution) I think that's why there's ultimately so much disagreement on this topic + overall American history. |
|||
:::::::Anyone can select, from an immense amount of historians, books that advocate one interpretation over the other. That's why — unless there is a consensus — neither view should be expressed in Wikivoice. |
|||
:::::::Interested in hearing your view. Ping, {{ping|Roger 8 Roger}}. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Nope. Your second removal of this material without consensus is just as unacceptable as the first. There is no talk page consensus and your citation of Magliari is quite frankly ludicrous (as you have already been told on [[Talk:United States]]) These are the final words of his review of the Yale University source you deleted: {{tq|Madley’s case for genocide is overwhelming and compelling in many specific instances. As his evidence makes plain, deliberately exterminatory campaigns devastated at least eighteen California tribes, including the Achumawi, Karuk, Lassik, Nisenan, Nongatl, Owens Valley Paiute, Pomo, Shasta, Sinkyone, Tolowa, Wailaki, Wappo, Whilkut, Wintu, Wiyot, Yana, Yuki, and Yurok. Beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt (and by the standards of any reasonable definition), '''genocide did in fact play a significant role in the US conquest and subjugation of Native California'''.}} (source accessible [https://read-dukeupress-edu.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ethnohistory/article/64/2/341/26348/An-American-Genocide-The-United-States-and-the?searchresult=1 here] via Wikipedia Library (Duke)) |
|||
:As often, your opening post is deceptive: this material has been in the entry since [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1029251187 8 June 2021] and so was not added "in the last year". -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 13:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::"There is vigorous debate over the scale of Native American losses after the discovery of gold in California and whether to characterize them as genocide. The application of the term "genocide", in particular, has been controversial." |
|||
::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide#Academic_debate_on_the_term_%22genocide%22 |
|||
::Americans know about the atrocities done to Native Americans. |
|||
::Might be applicable... 50 years ago. [[User:Flareonoak|Flareonoak]] ([[User talk:Flareonoak|talk]]) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Decided to change username. Above user account is me. Forgot password. [[User:Pokeimonflareon|Pokeimonflareon]] ([[User talk:Pokeimonflareon|talk]]) 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::California's governor also called it a genocide: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/newsom-native-american-apology.html |
|||
::Much different from Turkey. [[User:Pokeimonflareon|Pokeimonflareon]] ([[User talk:Pokeimonflareon|talk]]) 18:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The above accounts were created within hours of the restoration of the long-standing material, suggesting that the person running them has been following the page on a watchlist. The unsourced argument that publishers no longer pressure textbook authors does not show that they never did. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|SashiRolls}} |
|||
::::* As I stated on there, Ostler & Magliari were cited for their ''summaries of the present historiography'', rather ''than their personal viewpoints in the paper''. It shows that there is still a widespread, mainstream debate about it. (As recently as 2023) |
|||
::::* Roger 8 Roger is a ''long-term editor ''who also appears to have substantial issues with much of the current phrasing in the article on European colonization. I just asked + tagged him on the California genocide. (Since he has similar concerns about New Zealand.) Forget about Flareon here for a moment. |
|||
::::If we're going to include the California genocide debate in the article, then it [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_United_States_%281849%E2%80%931865%29&diff=1217551979&oldid=1216784830 should be something like your excellent summary of the current historiography on it here]. (Which is an excellent summary.) Would you object to that? However, I think the topic should be broadened to "Western colonization" or something similar. It doesn't make sense to just focus on the California genocide over the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]], [[Long Walk of the Navajo]], and many other events that went along with the ethnic cleansing in the Western United States. Arguments that the settlement of what is now Australia, Canada, and United States is whitewashed has been key in domestic [[history wars]], but it shouldn't be stated in Wikivoice. |
|||
::::And, yes. The SPA is correct. In my mind: it's ridiculous to state that the [[Genocide definitions|debates over genocide definitions]] (when both sides agree it was pure evil) are the same thing as denying the Holocaust or Armenian genocide. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 22:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I also don't think that essentially one historian (Clifford Trafzer) writing two papers in a relatively low impact (~2.5) journal ([[American Behavioral Scientist]]) is good enough to make such a sweeping claim. If we're going to make a section than it should be about the broader Anglophonic [[history wars]] and without a side being placed in Wikivoice. Would that work for you? Realize it's probably ambitious. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I don't know enough about the California or USA, situation or this ongoing discussion to comment. I changed the wording in the Australia section and removed the recently added NZ section. Despite my own views on those subjects, my actions were justified IMO on simple wikipedia edit principals - the wording was creating a personal opinion [[wp:weasel]] and what was written wasn't actually backed by what was said by the sources used, most of which were not independent reliable secondary sources anyway. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have no problem with discussion about ''modifying'' elements of the text after gaining consensus, it is the wholesale unilateral whitewashing that I object to. Again, as noted in the articles written by a school textbook author with experience in the matter, policies existed against including the story of the eradication of various tribes in educational materials. This would seem to me to meet the definition of negationism. If you have sources that contest Trafzer and his co-authors' claims, now is the time to mention them. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Newspapers such as the Times are reliable sources, and are more influential on the common usage of words than small circulation specialised academic journals. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|SashiRolls}}. Gary Clayton Anderson in ''Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America'' argues that it was not genocide, but, rather, ethnic cleansing. |
|||
::::::A better version of the text would be: |
|||
::::::* "Allegations of historical negationism have been made surrounding European settlement against the governments of [[Australia]], [[Canada]], the [[United States]], and [[New Zealand]], in the [[history wars]]." and continuing onwards from that. Briefly explaining the debate between historians on [[Genocide definitions|what genocide is]]; Radical, liberal, and conservative historiography on the matter; how it is impacted the politics of the respective countries; and so on and so forth. |
|||
::::::*Then linking to the "history wars" articles surrounding [[History wars|Australia]], [[History wars (Canada)|Canada]], New Zealand, and the United States. |
|||
::::::Ignoring the underlying (and broader) debate about colonization — focusing instead exclusively on the deaths of 2,000-13,000 indigenous peoples in California — makes no sense. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 22:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::For instance, {{ping|SashiRolls}}, Australian prime minister [[John Howard]] made a (famous) [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/22/john-howard-there-was-no-genocide-against-indigenous-australians statement that the actions the Australian government took against aboriginals shouldn't be classified as genocide]. It would be much, much better if we explained the whole debate on whether European settlement and colonization was inherently and/or led to negationism. (And not making a "no, it wasn't" or "yes, it was" statement in Wikivoice) |
|||
:::::::Mentioning California is jarring and completely [[WP: UNDUE]]. (Sorry for the delayed response! I don't have as much time - due to my job - as I used to.) [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== The Iğdır monument doesn't mention 'genocide' on its plaque. == |
|||
:::: Tow points. First justify that hipotesis (Im from Argentina. Here the two most important newspapers do a lot of malicious notes and are stuck in a good number of corruption cases despite the excelent level of the periodists) Second, my reference to the newspapers was pending of an old argument that wasn´t repeated, ergo there is no point in this comments about newsp. |
|||
The file with the Iğdır monument was described as a symbol of the "Armenian genocide denialism" that allegedly accuses Armenia of commiitting genocide against the Turks, and not vice versa. |
|||
:::: I really need feedblack about my arguments. I will use the recourse of "concensus by editting" only as last recourse for calling attention. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ignium|Ignium]] ([[User talk:Ignium|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ignium|contribs]]) 05:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
However, the term 'genocide' is not even mentioned on the entrance plaque of the monument. |
|||
Feedback? This section is incoherent and ridiculous. The name developed here was developed out of a long and argumentative consensus process, and I can see no argument here to overturn that. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Here is the text: Ermeniler tarafından katledilen şehit türkler. Anıt ve müzesi. |
|||
: The discussion was abandoned. The only reason found was the low use of the word "Negationist" in English and It was a 3 years old discussion. I put in evidence that the principal premise (low use) is no longer valid but the confusion remains. All these do your supossition of "ridiculous" quite subjetive. |
|||
: And thanks for your participation. --[[User:Ignium|Ignium]] ([[User talk:Ignium|talk]]) 12:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Genocide_Memorial_and_Museum#/media/File:Ermeniler_Taraf%C4%B1ndan_Katledilen_%C5%9Eehit_T%C3%BCrkler_AM.jpg |
|||
== Contemporary Ukraine == |
|||
Translation: Martyr Turks massacred by Armenians. Monument and museum. |
|||
I suggest that we remove this section, as it is not clear that there is a general consensus on this issue and as such it does not bring any clarity to this article. -- [[User:Philip Baird Shearer|PBS]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:Under the same logic we should remove the Contemporary Russia section. [[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT|talk]]) 11:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: No, re: contemporary Russia, which is somewhat mistitled at least until a more thorough discussion of opposing Russian viewpoints can be sourced and added to the narrative. I've restored with an appropriate title. It is clear from <u>'''both'''</u> Russian and western sources that a certain version of historical accounts is approved of by the current Russian administration and others clearly disapproved of (and likely on the way to criminalization, but another topic). [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]] [[User_talk:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #ffffff;background-color:#a12830;"> ♪ </font>]]</font> 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::By preferable accounts of history, are you referring to perhaps those of Solzhenitsyn et el? If not (and I assume not), why are his accounts mandatory study material for high school students and hence approved by the current administration? And why is this new "pro-Soviet" book not? Your claim of consensus on a current affair is alarmingly dubious. [[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT|talk]]) 01:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
The numerous massacres of the Turkish population by the enemies of the Ottoman Empire are well recognized and documented, and monuments in memory of their victims can not be considered as ana act of historical negationism. [[User:Hew Folly|Hew Folly]] ([[User talk:Hew Folly|talk]]) 07:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I am not making any statement about preference, nor of some overarching group consensus. Statements by parties on opposite sides of accounts of the Soviet legacy, e.g., |
|||
:I restored the image and the sourced caption. The en.wiki name of the related article is [[Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum]], while the tr.wiki article on the subject states: ''Ermeniler Tarafından Katledilen Şehit Türkler Anıt ve Müzesi[1][2][3][4][5] ya da eski adıyla Iğdır Soykırım Anıt ve Müzesi...'' (Memorial and Museum of Martyr Turks Murdered by Armenians, formerly known as Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum): [https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermeniler_Taraf%C4%B1ndan_Katledilen_%C5%9Eehit_T%C3%BCrkler_An%C4%B1t_ve_M%C3%BCzesi]. It's appropriate to include the image in the article. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::* Baltics were occupied versus stating Baltics were occupied should be criminalized, and |
|||
::According to the official website of the local Culture Ministry branch, |
|||
::::* what is, or is not, mentioned regarding other events and what is said about them |
|||
::'''Quote''': Iğdır ve köyleri 1915-1920 yıllarında Ermeni katliamlarına en yoğun maruz kalan bölgelerden biridir. O dönemde Iğdır halkının büyük bir kısmı (seksen binden fazla) katledilmiş, sağ kalanlar ise kendi yurtlarını terk etmek zorunda kalmıştır. Bu nedenle "soykırım" anıtının Iğdır’ da yükseltilmesi doğal bir talepten ileri gelmektedir. Iğdır "soykırım" Anıtı, şimdi Türkiye’ nin en yüksek anıtı olup, yüksekliği 43.50 m. dir. |
|||
:::: are demonstrably incompatible accounts of history. I retitled the section to ''focus on the official position of the Russian administration'' to remove ambiguity. The position of Medvedev's commission in general and statements by the commission's members specifically communicate a clear consensus. |
|||
::'''Translation''': Iğdır and its villages are one of the regions most exposed to Armenian massacres in 1915-1920. At that time, most of the people of Iğdır (more than eighty thousand) were massacred, and the survivors had to leave their homeland. For this reason, the erection of the "genocide" monument in Iğdır comes from a natural demand. Iğdır "genocide" Monument is now the tallest monument in Turkey, its height is 43.50 m. [https://igdir.ktb.gov.tr/TR-55726/igdir-soykirim-anit-muzesi.html] |
|||
:::: Solzhenitsyn is dead the last I heard, meanwhile Lavrov has yet to experience an epiphany although he was sitting across the table at the dénouement of the USSR about to agree to recognize the Soviet Union "<u>'''occupied'''</u>" the Baltic states. I have this on account of those sitting at the same table. [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]] [[User_talk:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #ffffff;background-color:#a12830;"> ♪ </font>]]</font> 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::As you might notice, the monument is officially dedicated to the events of the certaain locality while not extending to overcome any historical narrative or academic concept. [[User:Hew Folly|Hew Folly]] ([[User talk:Hew Folly|talk]]) 18:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Again if we apply this same logic to Holodomor it's clear that the genocide theories are no more acceptable accounts of history than denial of the occupation of the Baltic states. The fact that only a small club of politically motivated countries (decades after all the facts were established) along with ''zero'' authoritative international bodies have recognized Holodomor as a genocide, while the theory's main proponents are Ukrainian nationalists, speaks for itself. Both of our examples are in the same league of controversial fringe views. All I can gather from your argument is that you agree with one and not the other. You haven't demonstrated how one is more historically valid; and you can't. I've done a great degree of reading on these topics and I know well the general consensuses. [[User:LokiiT|LokiiT]] ([[User talk:LokiiT|talk]]) 12:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:::Wikipedia is relied upon on [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary reliable sources]], and the source unmistakably states that this monument promotes historical negationism and Armenian genocide denial: <q>The Iğdır genocide monument is the ultimate caricature of the Turkish government's policy of '''denying''' the 1915 genocide by '''rewriting''' '''history''' and transforming victims into guilty parties.</q> Marchand, Laure; Perrier, Guillaume (2015). ''Turkey and the Armenian Ghost: On the Trail of the Genocide''. McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 111–112 [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:38, 17 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical negationism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Croatia
[edit]Browsing some recent edits I've noticed usage of non existing sources or misrepresenting of sources by very liberal misquoting.
Perception on historical negationism in Croatia during the 90's should be put in right context. Operation Labrador was a false flag operation carried out by the Yugoslavian Counterintelligence Service (KOS) during the early stages of the Croatian War of Independence. It was devised as a series of terrorist attacks intended to create an image of Croatia as a pro-fascist state. Operation Labrador was complemented by Operation Opera — a propaganda campaign devised by the KOS to feed disinformation to the media. This was added and sourced but one user deleted it.
Unfortunately this practice is continued by Republice of Serbia to derail the focus on Serbian denial of Bosnian genocide and The Holocaust in Serbia. View edits by users Sadko and Griboroski.
On Croatian-Israeli relationships after Franjo Tuđman changed some of controversial facts in his book. More can be found here (prof. Klasić, in Croatian). [1]
https://www.jutarnji.hr/magazin/kako-je-doslo-do-renesanse-odnosa-hrvatske-i-izraela-ljubav-se-razvila-prije-dvije-godine-nakon-poteza-hrvatske-kojeg-u-tel-avivu-nisu-zaboravili/7662939
References
Australia and the United States
[edit]In the past year, editors have added in:
- The American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- The Australian history wars.
- Debate on whether the American treatment of indigenous people in California amounts to "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". As per 2023, the matter is "contentious" within the literature, according to Magliari (2023).
As examples of denialism or negationism. Yet all of these things are either not denied by anyone (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or simply debates on terminology on things essentially everyone agrees are crimes against humanity. It seems somewhat apples-to-oranges to me to compare these things in intent or influence to denying the Holocaust, or the Armenian genocide, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and the clean Wehrmacht myth. Tagging, @Roger 8 Roger:.
What do you think? I recently cut a lot of this stuff out of the article. KlayCax (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean? Do you agree with my edit or not? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I support your late March edit here, yes. I was referring to how a similar problem in happening in pages surrounding the United States. Editors are wrongly labeling things "denialist" that are debated within mainstream historiography.
- (e.g. Claiming that "ethnic cleansing" is denialist when it's a majority position within the literature.) KlayCax (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to tag, @Roger 8 Roger:. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. My latest removal, in its entirety, of the NZ section was because it was pointless. There is currently a 'pro-Maori' view throughout NZ that affects society in many different ways. The part I removed was wrapped up in that thinking. If there was genocide in NZ, it was in the Moriori genocide on the Chatham Islands in 1835 when a group of Maori invaded and annihilated them all (they were pacifist so it was easy. This was before Europeans had settled there). If they weren't killed they died of disease. The last full blooded Moriori died in 1933 or thereabouts. Whether the Maori invaders intended to kill off the whole race I don't know, but it happened. Although on a small scale, I think that better fits the description of genocide than a fringe theory about what happened in human history in NZ pre-1200, if anything did at all. NZ pre-history began around 1250 with the arrival of Polynesians, who became Maori, and who did not write so kept no written record. This was much later than elsewhere in the world. I agree about denialism - there was no denial of anything in NZ - there might have been a view that there were pre-Maori people there, but that was based on a lack of evidence, not on an intention to label Maori artificially as inferior. The part I think may have been genocide by Maori, ie about the Moriori, is now played down, I think because it sits uncomfortably with the pro-Maori approach being taken. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about the situation to say, @Roger 8 Roger:. I'm a Hispanic dude from Wisconsin, lol. :P KlayCax (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- All good!:) We probably agree on the same underlying principle but use different examples. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Do you agree with me that the California genocide debate doesn't belong in the article + the Australian history wars doesn't belong either? I definitely think this is another section that shouldn't be in the article. A lot of these articles (since 2016) have become entangled in Anglophonic history wars surrounding race, gender, and sexuality, and it comes across as WP: POV pushing, even if it's done with the best of intentions.
- Of course, I'm somewhat of an oddball in this. Most people who are considered "left-wing" in the United States generally support Keynesian economics and a sort of gender, race, and sexuality-focused (at least past the mid-2010s) or so historiographical view of the United States. I'm heavily influenced by historical materialism (or at least the material conditions within society) and see much of this history through economic lines and class. In my mind: one is much more threatening to the upper class than the other. (e.g. Endless debates over race, gender, and sexuality v. economic redistribution) I think that's why there's ultimately so much disagreement on this topic + overall American history.
- Anyone can select, from an immense amount of historians, books that advocate one interpretation over the other. That's why — unless there is a consensus — neither view should be expressed in Wikivoice.
- Interested in hearing your view. Ping, @Roger 8 Roger:. KlayCax (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- All good!:) We probably agree on the same underlying principle but use different examples. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about the situation to say, @Roger 8 Roger:. I'm a Hispanic dude from Wisconsin, lol. :P KlayCax (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. My latest removal, in its entirety, of the NZ section was because it was pointless. There is currently a 'pro-Maori' view throughout NZ that affects society in many different ways. The part I removed was wrapped up in that thinking. If there was genocide in NZ, it was in the Moriori genocide on the Chatham Islands in 1835 when a group of Maori invaded and annihilated them all (they were pacifist so it was easy. This was before Europeans had settled there). If they weren't killed they died of disease. The last full blooded Moriori died in 1933 or thereabouts. Whether the Maori invaders intended to kill off the whole race I don't know, but it happened. Although on a small scale, I think that better fits the description of genocide than a fringe theory about what happened in human history in NZ pre-1200, if anything did at all. NZ pre-history began around 1250 with the arrival of Polynesians, who became Maori, and who did not write so kept no written record. This was much later than elsewhere in the world. I agree about denialism - there was no denial of anything in NZ - there might have been a view that there were pre-Maori people there, but that was based on a lack of evidence, not on an intention to label Maori artificially as inferior. The part I think may have been genocide by Maori, ie about the Moriori, is now played down, I think because it sits uncomfortably with the pro-Maori approach being taken. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Forgot to tag, @Roger 8 Roger:. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. Your second removal of this material without consensus is just as unacceptable as the first. There is no talk page consensus and your citation of Magliari is quite frankly ludicrous (as you have already been told on Talk:United States) These are the final words of his review of the Yale University source you deleted:
Madley’s case for genocide is overwhelming and compelling in many specific instances. As his evidence makes plain, deliberately exterminatory campaigns devastated at least eighteen California tribes, including the Achumawi, Karuk, Lassik, Nisenan, Nongatl, Owens Valley Paiute, Pomo, Shasta, Sinkyone, Tolowa, Wailaki, Wappo, Whilkut, Wintu, Wiyot, Yana, Yuki, and Yurok. Beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt (and by the standards of any reasonable definition), genocide did in fact play a significant role in the US conquest and subjugation of Native California.
(source accessible here via Wikipedia Library (Duke)) - As often, your opening post is deceptive: this material has been in the entry since 8 June 2021 and so was not added "in the last year". -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 13:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- "There is vigorous debate over the scale of Native American losses after the discovery of gold in California and whether to characterize them as genocide. The application of the term "genocide", in particular, has been controversial."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide#Academic_debate_on_the_term_%22genocide%22
- Americans know about the atrocities done to Native Americans.
- Might be applicable... 50 years ago. Flareonoak (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Decided to change username. Above user account is me. Forgot password. Pokeimonflareon (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- California's governor also called it a genocide: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/newsom-native-american-apology.html
- Much different from Turkey. Pokeimonflareon (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above accounts were created within hours of the restoration of the long-standing material, suggesting that the person running them has been following the page on a watchlist. The unsourced argument that publishers no longer pressure textbook authors does not show that they never did. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls:
- As I stated on there, Ostler & Magliari were cited for their summaries of the present historiography, rather than their personal viewpoints in the paper. It shows that there is still a widespread, mainstream debate about it. (As recently as 2023)
- Roger 8 Roger is a long-term editor who also appears to have substantial issues with much of the current phrasing in the article on European colonization. I just asked + tagged him on the California genocide. (Since he has similar concerns about New Zealand.) Forget about Flareon here for a moment.
- If we're going to include the California genocide debate in the article, then it should be something like your excellent summary of the current historiography on it here. (Which is an excellent summary.) Would you object to that? However, I think the topic should be broadened to "Western colonization" or something similar. It doesn't make sense to just focus on the California genocide over the Wounded Knee Massacre, Long Walk of the Navajo, and many other events that went along with the ethnic cleansing in the Western United States. Arguments that the settlement of what is now Australia, Canada, and United States is whitewashed has been key in domestic history wars, but it shouldn't be stated in Wikivoice.
- And, yes. The SPA is correct. In my mind: it's ridiculous to state that the debates over genocide definitions (when both sides agree it was pure evil) are the same thing as denying the Holocaust or Armenian genocide. KlayCax (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also don't think that essentially one historian (Clifford Trafzer) writing two papers in a relatively low impact (~2.5) journal (American Behavioral Scientist) is good enough to make such a sweeping claim. If we're going to make a section than it should be about the broader Anglophonic history wars and without a side being placed in Wikivoice. Would that work for you? Realize it's probably ambitious. KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about the California or USA, situation or this ongoing discussion to comment. I changed the wording in the Australia section and removed the recently added NZ section. Despite my own views on those subjects, my actions were justified IMO on simple wikipedia edit principals - the wording was creating a personal opinion wp:weasel and what was written wasn't actually backed by what was said by the sources used, most of which were not independent reliable secondary sources anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls:
- The above accounts were created within hours of the restoration of the long-standing material, suggesting that the person running them has been following the page on a watchlist. The unsourced argument that publishers no longer pressure textbook authors does not show that they never did. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem with discussion about modifying elements of the text after gaining consensus, it is the wholesale unilateral whitewashing that I object to. Again, as noted in the articles written by a school textbook author with experience in the matter, policies existed against including the story of the eradication of various tribes in educational materials. This would seem to me to meet the definition of negationism. If you have sources that contest Trafzer and his co-authors' claims, now is the time to mention them. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @SashiRolls:. Gary Clayton Anderson in Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America argues that it was not genocide, but, rather, ethnic cleansing.
- A better version of the text would be:
- "Allegations of historical negationism have been made surrounding European settlement against the governments of Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand, in the history wars." and continuing onwards from that. Briefly explaining the debate between historians on what genocide is; Radical, liberal, and conservative historiography on the matter; how it is impacted the politics of the respective countries; and so on and so forth.
- Then linking to the "history wars" articles surrounding Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.
- Ignoring the underlying (and broader) debate about colonization — focusing instead exclusively on the deaths of 2,000-13,000 indigenous peoples in California — makes no sense. KlayCax (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- For instance, @SashiRolls:, Australian prime minister John Howard made a (famous) statement that the actions the Australian government took against aboriginals shouldn't be classified as genocide. It would be much, much better if we explained the whole debate on whether European settlement and colonization was inherently and/or led to negationism. (And not making a "no, it wasn't" or "yes, it was" statement in Wikivoice)
- Mentioning California is jarring and completely WP: UNDUE. (Sorry for the delayed response! I don't have as much time - due to my job - as I used to.) KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problem with discussion about modifying elements of the text after gaining consensus, it is the wholesale unilateral whitewashing that I object to. Again, as noted in the articles written by a school textbook author with experience in the matter, policies existed against including the story of the eradication of various tribes in educational materials. This would seem to me to meet the definition of negationism. If you have sources that contest Trafzer and his co-authors' claims, now is the time to mention them. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
The Iğdır monument doesn't mention 'genocide' on its plaque.
[edit]The file with the Iğdır monument was described as a symbol of the "Armenian genocide denialism" that allegedly accuses Armenia of commiitting genocide against the Turks, and not vice versa.
However, the term 'genocide' is not even mentioned on the entrance plaque of the monument.
Here is the text: Ermeniler tarafından katledilen şehit türkler. Anıt ve müzesi.
Translation: Martyr Turks massacred by Armenians. Monument and museum.
The numerous massacres of the Turkish population by the enemies of the Ottoman Empire are well recognized and documented, and monuments in memory of their victims can not be considered as ana act of historical negationism. Hew Folly (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I restored the image and the sourced caption. The en.wiki name of the related article is Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum, while the tr.wiki article on the subject states: Ermeniler Tarafından Katledilen Şehit Türkler Anıt ve Müzesi[1][2][3][4][5] ya da eski adıyla Iğdır Soykırım Anıt ve Müzesi... (Memorial and Museum of Martyr Turks Murdered by Armenians, formerly known as Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum): [1]. It's appropriate to include the image in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- According to the official website of the local Culture Ministry branch,
- Quote: Iğdır ve köyleri 1915-1920 yıllarında Ermeni katliamlarına en yoğun maruz kalan bölgelerden biridir. O dönemde Iğdır halkının büyük bir kısmı (seksen binden fazla) katledilmiş, sağ kalanlar ise kendi yurtlarını terk etmek zorunda kalmıştır. Bu nedenle "soykırım" anıtının Iğdır’ da yükseltilmesi doğal bir talepten ileri gelmektedir. Iğdır "soykırım" Anıtı, şimdi Türkiye’ nin en yüksek anıtı olup, yüksekliği 43.50 m. dir.
- Translation: Iğdır and its villages are one of the regions most exposed to Armenian massacres in 1915-1920. At that time, most of the people of Iğdır (more than eighty thousand) were massacred, and the survivors had to leave their homeland. For this reason, the erection of the "genocide" monument in Iğdır comes from a natural demand. Iğdır "genocide" Monument is now the tallest monument in Turkey, its height is 43.50 m. [2]
- As you might notice, the monument is officially dedicated to the events of the certaain locality while not extending to overcome any historical narrative or academic concept. Hew Folly (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is relied upon on secondary reliable sources, and the source unmistakably states that this monument promotes historical negationism and Armenian genocide denial:
The Iğdır genocide monument is the ultimate caricature of the Turkish government's policy of denying the 1915 genocide by rewriting history and transforming victims into guilty parties.
Marchand, Laure; Perrier, Guillaume (2015). Turkey and the Armenian Ghost: On the Trail of the Genocide. McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 111–112 Vanezi (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is relied upon on secondary reliable sources, and the source unmistakably states that this monument promotes historical negationism and Armenian genocide denial:
Categories:
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Alternative views articles
- Top-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles