Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical revisionism (negationism) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

---

Archives
negationism 1 2 3

Contents 1 Intro slightly POV? 2 1984 citation questioned 3 truth 4 Some Bias

[edit] Intro slightly POV?

Hi. I read the article intro and I found it a little POV. It contains sentences/words which put the topic in a negative light, such as "ignoring essential facts", "to distort", "it allows them to cloak their illegitimate activities". I do not dare to change it since it is such a delicate topic and I am not a native speaker of english, but I'd like if some of you considered what I've said. Bye --87.10.191.186 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is POV by definition, no one calls negationism undistorted and legitimate, see historical revisionism. -- Stbalbach 13:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 citation questioned

The mention of the novel "1984" as an example of negationism seems puzzling. I'm not certain if the article refrences the behavior of the fictional governmental entities in the novel or the novel itself as an example. 68.45.143.196 20:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Bill 5 December 2006

[edit] truth

The question is - who is denying the truth. The negationism label sounds like a way to brand a historian who is getting too close to your ox. What is the term that describes someone who tries to hide an unpleasant fact from others - I hope it isn't mainstearm or legitimate or accredited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

denying "essential facts" - how does a fact become "essential". Can an "essential fact" be questioned scientifically? If an "essential fact" is impossible, is it "essential". This article sounds foolish.

[edit] Some Bias

Doesn't the part about Macedonianism seems slightly biased? 141.217.108.100 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 13/12/06 1:09 PM EST Dan