Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical revisionism (negationism) is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Historical revisionism (negationism) article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives
negationism, 1, 2, 3, 4

Contents

[edit] 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. 71.82.5.145 (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colonial and Imperial revisionism

I think that this section should be moved into Historical revisionism if it belongs in either of the two articles. --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?[1]
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 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."[2] Or more recently when a French spokesman angered Australian public opinion by suggesting that Mururoa Atoll was part of France.[3] 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 dolls when using the term.[4]

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"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. rueben_lys (talk · 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? --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. rueben_lys (talk · 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. --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 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. rueben_lys (talk · 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. --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. rueben_lys (talk · 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 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. --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

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)