Talk:History wars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
History wars is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Divisions
Do the History Wars really break down into the dichotomies of the political right and left, as this article implies? --Our Bold Hero 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Windschuttle
I'm planning to extend this article over the next several months to incorporate more detailed information on Windschuttle's major arguments and the responses to his works by members of the academic left. I will be using The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Whitewash, Washout and the compilation of Windschuttle articles at sydneyline.com as the primary sources of information. Any suggestions for additional sources of information would be most appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.91.117 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Relationship with US culture war
Unless I'm missing something big, the History Wars of Australia have no particular similarity to the American Culture war. I'd recomend removing the comparison.Rbl 05:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- The History wars appear to be the main Australian expression of the left/right stuggle for cultural dominance in Australia, I see a clear parralel to the US Culture war. Paul foord 05:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge article
Very little information in Black armband view of history is not already covered in the broader article History Wars, and the former is really inseparable from the latter. I would suggest that the articles be merged.Edelmand 12:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose merger - appreciate the comments by Edelmand, however, the topic History Wars is broader, the phrase Black armband has some currency on its own and I think they are worth being separate articles, notwithstanding the Black armband article could do with some work. The black armband phrase is more political and more mainstream than historians having divergent points of view.--Golden Wattle talk 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - Duplicity of information and should be placed as section titled "Results", of History Wars Prester John 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - do you mean duplicity or duplication? :-) --Golden Wattle talk 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the term has currency in its own right particularly given the emphasis Geoffrey Blainey and John Howard have given it. The History Wars are potentially broader whilst this aspect is particularly important in understanding white attitudes to Indigenous Australians. Paul foord 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
