Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. TO CONTRIBUTE MORE GO TO Talk:Historical revisionism.

1 Is the following the article author's POV?
2 Temporal revisionism
3 Temporal Revisionism
4 Garry Kasparov
5 A little joke?
6 Image
7 political revisionism
8 Striving for NPVO
9 A second common usage of the phrase "historical revisionism"
10 Problems with new text
11 Mysterious Sources
12 Rewrite of the paragraph on historical revisonisms second meaning

Is the following the article author's POV?

Historical revisionism is a type of research that aims to change the conventional, most widely-accepted understanding of specific historical events. History is, after all, written by the winners. Historical revisionism thus is legitimate historical research

This article is not npov. there are holocaust-revisionist scholars out there who are certainly not nazis or anti-semitists. When you have an event of such a large scale as the holocaust, there are bound to be details that historians get wrong. to automatically dismiss any criticism of the standard story at all for the sake of political correctness, is ridiculous. Sure, there are a lot of nutcases who want to pretend it never happened at all, but academics who want to quibble over the details should not be white washed as extremists. Vroman

I'd question some of the paragraph's terminology, but it seems like this article is talking about two different things: the popular view of revisionism -- a view largely shaped by David Irving and his ilk, note; and the academic view, where all writing of history is seen as revisionist, and nobody thinks revisionism wrong, since it's just a method -- no, the method -- of writing history. As a friend of mine, formerly of McGill's history department, put it: "Revision is kinda the point of writing history."

In the latter sense, revisionism is as old as history writing itself: compare the account of Augustus' reign in the Res Gestae Divi Augustae and Tacitus' account of same in Book I of the Annals. (See the first item under revisionism -- that summarizes the average historian's view perfectly.)

So I don't know whether I should rewrite more of this from the historian's point of view, or just leave it as it is: discussing both perceptions, but leaning towards the popular, or non-academic, POV. --Mirv 09:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Temporal revisionism

I don't understand what the fourth paragraph is meant to mean. Can anyone shed any light?

Moved para here:

Temporal Revisionism

Another genre of historical revisionism is associated with a famous chess player. This school of thought attempts to reconstruct history based on what it sees as evidence that things like the Roman Empire did not really occour two thousand years ago, but more like fifteen hundred years ago. They attempt to use mathematics and cite missing information to prove this theory.

---

If this isn't blatantly slanted writing I don't know what is:

"Less legitimate revisionism Revisionism in the style mentioned above is usually a force for good as it brings important new information to light and helps destroy old myths. However, there are other types of revisionism which are much less positive. Instead of being motivated by didactic pursuits, some types of revisionism are spawned by a desire to reshape history to help serve a particular political agenda."

They're using terms like 'less legitimate' and 'force for good' as if they were neutral and quantifiable states of being. I think this should be rewritten, and will do so shortly when I get the time to do so.

Peregrine981 00:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Done. Paragraph now points up contrast between didactic revisionism and political revisionism, using more neutral terms. --Mirv 06:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So who is really following an ideological agenda and who is less accurate? http://vho.org/GB/c/FPB/NizkorLies.html

Garry Kasparov

Why is his name on this page? The page mentions him, but what it says about him is rather strange and not very detailed. Does anybody know more? Does he really belong on this page, or is his name here because of vandalism mistaken for something factual? ChessPlayer 12:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

It was added by an anonymous user with two edits. It probably has no value. - George Washington III 17:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I've taken it out. Here is the paragraph in question:

Finally the term "historical revisionism", or simply "revisionism" is used sometimes to refer to specific revisionist theories associated with the famous chess player Garry Kasparov, which believe that the events of what are known as the last 3,000 years occurred in either a much shorter or a much longer time frame, and attempts to explain how.

It sounds like the sort of thing that some people might believe, but I've never heard of it being attribted to Kasparov. I'd like to see a source for it before it went back in - a search on Google hasn't turned anything up. --Camembert

Camembert, I found it on my first google: It is apparently something he does adhere to and he even wrote the introduction to a book about it. check this out. Danny 17:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh heck, I must've searched for the wrong things. It seems kind of familiar, that article - I might have even read it before... ah well, I'll put the paragraph back in the article (I might fiddle with it a bit first). --Camembert

I haven't checked Kasparov specifically, but I suspect he is just a follower of Fomenko's "New Chronology". If that's true, this section could be just renamed. (It's strange there is already no reference on Fomenko here, as he seems to be one of the most popular revisionists nowadays.) --212.27.240.40 02:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A little joke?

Are the authors of this article having their little joke by trying to revise the definition of revisionism? Revisionism has never meant a system of updating history as new information becomes available. It has always meant revising history to support a particular effect. The oldest reference I could find, from the 1969 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary has only one: "n. A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position." Also, this from the tenth edition (2003) of the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "n. often derogatory. 1. a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist or pluralist principles. 2. the theory or practice of revising one’s attitude to something. — DERIVATIVES revisionist n. & adj." -~~

Revisionism has never meant a system of updating history as new information becomes available. .. This is simply incorrect. It _can_ mean that. It means exactly what it says, a reviseing of history. You are implying that all historical revisions are political in nature, done for a certain reason. That is true in some cases, but not all. As new information comes to light, history is revised. One only has to read the article on feudalism for example to see how professional historians apply historical revisionism to a topic. It is not politically motivated to support some particular effect. Indeed, the definition you provide from Oxford has two definitions, the second contradicting what you are saying. Stbalbach 15:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What they are trying to do is create a false distinction between Revisionist history and Historical revisionism. This distinction is based sheerly upon the opinions of the editors involved, and has no basis in objectivity nor neutrality. The articles must be NPOV'ed and merged. Sam [Spade] 13:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the NPOV stuff was moved to a seperate article "historical revisionism" because that article had allready existed and it was, as you say, shockingly NPOV and I had no desire to fight the special interests groups (jewish holocaust, Marxists, and others) who have co-opted and politicized term. This article "historical revisionism" has a specific meaning in the historical profession and the article is laid out as such. If you care to try and merge these completely seperate concepts (the historical profession usage and the politicized usage) in to one article and term that everyone agress with, you can try. Stbalbach 15:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see your point. I edited the article to minimize the "Revisionist history" is all lies slant, and removed the dispute header. I hope thats ok. Sam [Spade] 16:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This definition: 1969 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary has only one: "n. A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position." is an entirely different subject from the material which properly belongs in this article. It refers to "Revisionism" as in "Khrushchev, the revisionist capitalist-roader". I rather like the division into two: one which views good faith efforts to take a new look at history, historical revisionism; and the other which covers bad faith efforts to present false history as in Holocaust denial, revisionist history. Fred Bauder 23:48, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I take it back (see strikeout). This term is used as such. Although, after some research, my conclusion was that the use of the term to describe "reexamination of accepted history" is a minority definition and is used within a narrow group—(1) this article gives no sources for that definition, (2) I could find no historical use [doesn't mean there isn't one], (3) -ism means a belief in revision which seems redundant unless revisionism means more than simple revision, (4) a statistical sample [within two standard deviations] of this term on the internet [although the internet is admittedly unreliable] indicated about a 10% use for this definition, and (5) of those using this benign definition, most appeared to be connected with a small class of people. The pejorative meaning had historical precedent and was widely used by a broad class of the population. I could not find a meaningful way to combine both meanings into one article. Perhaps someone can.12.74.168.93 00:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I remember, when we last discussed neutrality regarding fascism, you made it pretty clear you think there is a line, across which neutrality may not cross. Has your position changed, or shall I consider you irredeemably POV on this issue? Sam [Spade] 00:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, I support Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Taking for example, Holocaust denial, while most authority maintains this work is bogus, i.e. revisionist history, a tiny minority maintains it is the legitimate product of historical revisionist studies. The crunch comes with attribution of that opinion which involves the identity and proper characterization of that tiny minority. It is difficult to phrase it much different from this: "The neonazi website, www.killthejews.com (not a real website as of November 2, 2004) maintains Holocaust denial is the product of careful historical research." The same problem exist with respect to supporters of Stalin in the articles Great Purge (the event), The Great Terror (the book) and Collectivisation in the USSR. Fred Bauder 13:30, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

For example from the article, The Great Terror#Criticism by Marxist-Leninists

Marxist-Leninists strongly criticize Conquest's scholarship, in particular, for his reliance on such sources as Nazi collaborators, émigrés, and the CIA. By what is viewed by supporters of Conquest as an attempt to poison the well, they characterize his work with British Intelligence and the Foreign Office as "production of anti-Soviet propaganda". Citing a book sympathetic to Stalin, Another view of Stalin by Ludo Martens, a quote from the chapter "Conquest's fascist sources" is advanced: 'To justify the use of émigré books recording rumors, Conquest claimed "truth can thus only percolate in the form of hearsay" and that "basically the best, though not infallible, source is rumor." This book is available online on the website of the Maoist Progressive Labor Party [1].

This formulation is unlikely to be satisfactory to Marxist-Leninist POV pushers as, to be frank, what it says, in more or less polite language is, "A discredited minority disagrees." Fred Bauder 13:30, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think we disagree less than it originally appeared. I have no problem explaining exactly who does, and does not support a particular revision of history, thats what were here to do, after all, discuss the facts. Have a look at Reptilian humanoid, and you will see that certain fringe groups (perhaps "fringe individuals" in this case) envision a world wherein dinosauroids play a pivotal role (I think at least some accuse George Bush of being a reptiloid, for example). Clearly these guys are not mainstream, but even in their bizarre case (and many others, flat earth society comes to mind) a very tiny minority holds an extremely outlandish view. Holocaust or Soviet revisionism frankly pales in comparison (and really, how do we know how many agree w these interpretations of history, worldwide?). All of that said, IMO it is an unfair, POV distinction, a false dichotomy if you will, to split the concept of historical reevaluation into Historical revisionism and revisionist history. What criteria do we use to make this distinction? Is it fair to the subject we are discussing, and the people who hold these concepts dear? IMO we need to merge these two articles, with a special section for disputed claims, who disputes them, who supports them, and why. Sam [Spade] 15:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the split was never done intentionally the two articles existed independently and I noticed it one day and re-organized stuff as a matter of convience to avoid dealing with the fringe people, give them their own article to doodle in and let the real stuff happen here .. I also linked the two articles in the opening paragraphs, so there is nothing hidden, everything is transparent. I think your making what is really a organizational issue into a complicated POV issue, which it is not. Like I said, if you or some one wants to combine them, it would be easy enough, just make sure it maintains seperate and clear sections within the article, and the opening paragraph with the two seperate definitions. We will edit if there is any problem. I do think, however, you are inviting a long protracted problem with the fringe people editing the article to their own ends and NPOV views, which was the problem originally. Breaking it off in to a seperate article solves a lot of problems and effort. Stbalbach 06:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand your point completely, the problem is fringe people shouldn't have their "own article to doodle in", it creates... alot of doodle ;) Sam [Spade] 12:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another way to do this is simply rename "revisionist history" to "Historical revisionism (political)" which it can arguably be said deserves a seperate article given the large scope and seperate nature of the topic. Stbalbach 14:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, see Historical revisionism (political). Thanks for your help, and amiable nature Stbalbach. Sam [Spade] 20:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image

If you had replaced it with another image, perhaps, but we are building an encyclopedia, not destroying one. The story of George Washington and cutting down the apple tree is not any more esoteric example of historical revisionism than other example. If you have somthing better, lets see it. Stbalbach 15:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

political revisionism

There is a historical revisionism article that deals with politics. This article deals with historical revisionism within the academic field, in which mainstream academic historians revise mainstream academic historical viewpoints based on new evidence, such as new research findings that are broadly accepted by the majority of people. Also it is not a paradigm shift, that term has a specific meaning as defined by Thomas Khun, revising a viewpoint on the past is typically not a paradigm shift. --Stbalbach 16:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Often times it is the historians who are in the minority such as women historians, or ethnic minority historians, or those who work outside of mainstream academia, or who work in smaller and less known universities, or young scholars, who have the most to gain, and the least to lose, by shaking up the establishment. Those historians who work within the existing establishment, who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. The words could have come from Thomas Khun. That is exactly what causes a paradigm to be created and then a shift to happen.
I was not referring to texts from the middle ages but those from none latin/church sources which were defined as dark ages. Eg Welsh, Gaelic, Sagas etc. What you have put in place is a tautology.
I am not happy with you removing my text on the British Empire and Germany. I added it precisely because at the moment revision of history is taking place in those areas and it explains why ideas which were on the fringe are now main stream, not so much because new sources are availible but because what was once "work outside of mainstream" is now mainstream because society has changed. To pretend that there is some absolute truth in history and that academic historians work in a vacume without being effected by the political and cultural landscape is false. We can quibble about the section on Irving if you like but I am going to restore my contribution. As I spent more time thinking about it and writing my contribution, I am likely to be more emotionally attached to it than you are to deleting it. Philip Baird Shearer 17:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a seperate article for the discussion of political historical revisionism. Your text has been moved to that article. This is not the article for the discussion of political historical revisionism. Myself and other editors spent months cleaning this article up so that we could remove the POV tag that was previously here. The only way to do that was to move political discussions to a seperate article. We have had numerous discussions in the talk pages, (please read the talk pages histories on both articles) and it has arrived at this point for a reason. You can not just decide to change things one day on your own, and not discuss it here first when other people have allready put a lot of time and energy in to creating the structure that is here. Stbalbach 22:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me how historians work is not influenced by the political environment and culture in which they live, particularly the zeitgeist of an age and I will stop including my text on this subject on this page. Philip Baird Shearer 02:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you have read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you will of course be aware that Khun does not include history as an example in his book which is strictly about paradigm shifts in the natural sciences. However as the Wikipedia page paradigm shift makes clear the ideas have been applied to many other areas of intellectual pursuit since his groundbreaking work. Philip Baird Shearer 02:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate article for your text. There is a seperate article called "Historical revisionism (political)". Your text is located there.

As for Khun, you need to back it up with source quotes -- you can not do so, as you admit, because Khun never talks about historical revisionism. Your usage is Original Research which is against the rules of Wikipedia. --03:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed that Khun said such a thing I clamed "However as the Wikipedia page paradigm shift makes clear the ideas have been applied to many other areas of intellectual pursuit since his groundbreaking work." Here is an example UNIVERSITY OF WALES, ABERYSTWYTH, DEGREE EXAMINATIONS 1998 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND WELSH HISTORY

Why do historiographical paradigms shift?

which is just one suitable paper I found using Google [historiographical paradigms] I sugget that the seach is narrowed by including site:ac.uk or site:edu The latter threw up: Colonial Africa Colloquium

Most of what we will read is the work of historians; however, we will also engage to some extent with anthropology, literature, political science, feminist theory, and geography. A portion of that will be excerpts from the hottest recently published works. However, our task is to explore a variety of scholarly approaches to colonialism, to investigate important periods of reconceptualization, and to recognize strands of debates that have laced through a variety of paradigms of imperialism and colonialism.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Striving for NPVO

Over the past months I have done my best to keep this article netural. Philip Baird Shearer insists on discussing Nazis and The Holocaust and other contensious political matters here. Those issues were segregated to a seperate article so that this article could remain netural, yet, Philip Baird Shearer continues to "edit war" and add back Nazi and Holocaust material, forceing his opinions to the forefront. Philip Baird Shearer is, in short, not being very co-operative or helpful in keeping this article neutral. As future editors come here and edit and change Philip Baird Shearer work (which, from experiences, they will), because they don't agree with his points of view on the Holocaust and Hitler, and as future editors come here and add {NPOV} tags to this article, I will wait for Philip Baird Shearer to fix the problem he has created. --Stbalbach 16:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would understand if Philip simply felt we were being POV in creating Historical revisionism (political). If that were the case, I might be tempted to agree w him. But thats not whats happening here. His edits are well beyond anything allowed for by NPOV, and while informative and interesting, are far to biased to be of much use here. Example (talk · contribs) 16:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stbalbach you say I an "not being very co-operative or helpful in keeping this article neutral" yet I am the one who is adding material and trying to accommodate your criticisms by addressing them as you post them to this talk page which is how Wikipedia articles improve. Editing what has been added is one thing but just to revert it all is another. To quote from a well known authority on such matters:

Please stop insisting its your way or no way, thats an attitude contrary to the M:Foundation issues of the project, and to the concept of group editing in general. Pages change, and this is not your page. Sam Spade 19:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the rather anaemic paragraph which directs people to Historical revisionism (political). I will for the moment removed the paragraph on David Irving until we have discussed it further. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Philip. why do you keep putting material related to political issues here when there is a seperate article allready set up for that very purpose? Please answer that question. A number of editors in the past agreed to seperate political issues, to a seperate article, in order that the NPOV tag could be removed from at least part of the material, seeing as how no one has of yet been able to write about historical revisionism (political) in a NPOV way. Your recent contributions are clearly NPOV and not in the spirit of Wikipedia, what you wrote is an essay and original research. It clearly belongs in the other article. Why wont you put it there? I can tell you why, because the other article has a NPOV tag allready on it. Mind you, this one, as you have currently edited it, deserves a NPOV tag as well.

I have restored Sam Spades edit, which was a compromise, and at least keeps the NPOV tag from appearing. --Stbalbach 22:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The last edit which you reverted was about things other than just politics. I have removed any reference to Nazi and Holocaust to accommodate your views until we can reach an agreement. So please explain to me in the last version which which you reverted what was it that you object to. Please don't just say all of it but be specific. Philip Baird Shearer 23:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Philip, you sent me a private email which I just read. I would rather do all communications in public, Wikipedia works because it is transparent.

For the record here is your email:

I had a look at you user page and I am sure that you are acting in good faith over the page Historical revisionism but please be aware that people who favour David Irving's interpretation of history and edit Wikipedia will favour a bland page. If you look at the pages "Bombing of Dresden", "Total War", "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" and many more similar pages you will see that the same persons or (person with sockpupets) put up Templates like {NPOV} or {TitleNPOV} on a lot of articles at about the same time as the one put on the Historical_revisionism article and all of them were to do with what David Irving referes to as revisonist history.

Please read what Noel had to say on Irving in a section on Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 5 and then the article on David Irving because it will help you understand why some people will resist his name being mentioned on Historical revisionism and that it is part of a wider struggle and I hope that on consideration that you will see that the current page is not a NPOV piece.

As someone who has a passion for history, I hope you realise how insidius Irving is to the profession and I look forward to working with you on developing the page further.

I gather, from this, you are saying that because this page does _not_ mention Nazis and David Irving (you used the word "bland"), it implicitly favours David Irving. This is a logical fallacy, and it shows you have an agenda (ie. POV). This article being mis-used (abused) by both sides of the debate, trying to present their POV on the issue through examples and essays that are essentially original research and not reflective of standard academic views. Historical revisionism is a legitimate term that has legitimate academic usage and our job is to summarize what the mainstream views are, not to write our own interpretations or emphesis particular things we might think are important. We seperated it out in to two articles because the anti and pro Nazi cadre (on both sides of the debate) have essentially claimed the term for themselves and they can spray paint the walls with their messages somewhere else under a NPOV tag, and leave the adults to deal with its real legitimate meaning here. Of course this action of creating 2 seperate articles is open for discussion, but until your recent edits it has worked very well, this article has not had a NPOV tag for a long time.

I will look over your text later and show where is needs to cite sources and/or is POV. --Stbalbach 00:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your point that "[h]istorical revisionism is a legitimate term that has legitimate academic usage" is that for a lot of people it has (unfortunately) a different meaning - and moreover, that meaning is the only one they know. That meaning, of course, is the kind of thinking which produces people like the Holocaust deniers.

This distressing confusion is a direct result of people who distort history to make it serve their political or cultural beliefs (and/or psychological quirks). This includes most notably the HD's (such the so-called "Institute for Historical Review", and David Irving, who explicitly calls himself a "revisionist" - see David Evans, Lying about Hitler, pp. 145). However, it also includes many others too numerous to list here, such as the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theorists, the more extreme Afrocentrism proponents, etc. They have all appropriated the term "historical revisionism" in an attempt to give themselves legitimacy.

Alas, they haven't given themselves anything - all they have done is tarnish (to some degree irreparably, IMO) the term "historical revisionism".

Look, I have a lot of sympathy with your position, because I've been there. I was a hacker, in the sense of "computer wizard", in the 70's, long before that term became appropriated by juvenile delinquents and the press to mean "computer vandal". Along with the rest of the original hackers, I was very distressed at the corruption of what was once (to us) an enlightened title. However, done is done, and if you go read Wikipedia's hacker article, "crackers" (as we unsuccessfully attempted to label them) are now discussed there too.

Yes, there definitely are two distinct concepts under the label "historical revisionism", and the older (the one you're attempting to focus this article on) is a extremely valuable one. History benefits greatly from re-examination with a fresh eye.

Alas, I have a feeling that no matter what you call this variation, the distinction will again be deliberately muddied, by people who persist in wrapping themselves in the mantle of real historical revisionism (or whatever term you pick) to give themselves legitimacy. And who knows, probably a lot of them believe that they really are historical revisionists, and feel that they are just as entitled to use of the term as those whom you and I would consider real HR's.

So, with this more malign kind of "historical revisionism" being what many people think of when they hear the term, I think you have to be more expansive and forceful in discussing it here, and not shuffling it off to some other article.

And yes, it may make this article a target for the "historical delusionists" (to coin a phrase), but that is par for the course on Wikipedia, in so many areas. Noel (talk) 16:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A second common usage of the phrase "historical revisionism"

Although the term does encompass the general meaning as defined here and as used in a Washington Post article [2]. It also has a more specific usage which should be reflected in this article which is when it is used as a label for an article which deliberately misrepresents and manipulates historical evidence for political motives, an example of this usage is reported in another Post article [3]

People for the American Way saw it in a different light:...

"Our primary concern is continued right-wing intimidation against the expressions of opposing points of view, whether attacks on dissent, intimidation of scientific researchers, or a demand for historical revisionism -- or historical cleansing -- regarding Ronald Reagan."

The David Irving page states that Justice Charles Gray, the trial judge of his failed libel case, concluded :"Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

As the trial judge found Irving "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence", and as a Google search on David Irving's own web site [historical revisionism site:fpp.co.uk] shows that a common modern usage of the term "historical revisionism" is used to describe Irving's writings, I think that a mention of this alternative modern usage of the phrase should be included on this page because without it the article does not describe all current usage of the phrase.

Given Irving's failure in his the British libel case and the use of it to describe Irving work this meaning of the term is not an unbalanced POV. Searches of current mainstream English language newspapers with Google, (eg ["historical revisionism" site:www.guardian.co.uk] and returns articles using the term as a shorthand for "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence" for political motives. Philip Baird Shearer 14:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems with new text

The whole section under "Interesting Times" is POV. It is a partially articulated side of a long-standing argument about what history is, the Philosophy of History, or Historiography, and is not really specific to Historical revisionism. In fact it tries to explain Historical revisionism within one, of many, philosophical views of what history is. There are other views on what history is. As well, it only made sense when speaking about 19th and 20th century historians writing about their own times.

So I have made some changes

0) Changed the title to reflect what is actually being discussed (which really doesnt belong in this article, it belongs in historiography or philosophy or history.

1) removed "nationalism" as an influence. There was no nationalism in ancient Greece.

2) removed "ideology" .. a modern concept and idea that doesnt transfer to historians further back in time.

3) Should remove zeitgeist which is a modern concept and term and makes no sense when speaking about, say, the Middle Ages.

4) "historiographical paradigm" .. this is a loaded term it is often used by people speaking about the holocaust. It is also not very friendly to the general reader. Changed to "model and outline of history".

5) "which is agreed upon by contemporaries." .. didnt make sense what was trying to be said here. No work is fully agreed upon by contemporaries.

6) "This is the point-of-view of the most recent wave of revisionists." .. this needs to be supported and clarified. Which "recent wave of revisionists" ?

-- Stbalbach 18:12, 27 Jan 2005

At least editing the text is more constructive than just deleting it! I think you are confused. The point is not if such things as nationalism influenced events in Ancient Greece. It is that such things as ideology, nationalism, language and culture influence the interpretation of the events today. A very good example of this is the changing analysis of the English Civil War.

Ideology has an influence on historical analysis and can lead to a revision of history. As is discussed in the Civil War article "The Marxist school of thought, which became popular in the 1940s, interpreted the Civil War as a bourgeois revolution." This was one of the standard interpretations of the English Civil War from the 1940s up to the late 1970s and was widely taught in English schools and universities.
Nationalism does effect the way historians in the modern era view history. Just look how military historians are sill fighting the Battle of Waterloo. For an example of how Nationalism can effect a revision of history, see how the influence of the European Union (and other factors) have been reinforcing regional identity in the UK. As the regions in the United Kingdom have become more assertive, so the interpretation of events in the English Civil War see the article Wars of the Three Kingdoms.
Language has a huge effect because the primary sources most readily available to historians are in languages they understand. See Dark Ages for an example of what this means and the effect it has.
Culture is plays a large part in influencing the view of historians see the section of slavery for an example of this. Philip Baird Shearer 19:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Philip, what sources are you using for your most recent additions? I would like to research further and check your work. Note that if material can not be backed up with sources, it is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia. --Stbalbach 02:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious Sources

Philip, the reason I am asking to see your sources is because I believe what you have writen is one side of the argument against David Irving. You are representing what Historical revionism is within a very narrow context. Your entry and motives here are highly suspect. You have allready made it clear, both in your email to me, and in comments here, that you have set out to refute the pro-David Irving arguments involving Nazis and the Holocaust, that you are only focusing on modern historians which is, as you say, your "point". What are your sources, Philip? I have some familiarity with the Philosophy of History, and what you have writen is not standard. I would re-write the entire article from scratch, and still might in the future, but it is a huge project because there are so many legitimate mainstream great thinkers on this subject, none of which you have mentioned. I would normally not care, some text is better than nothing and theres no reason to chastise contributors, except I believe you have larger motives at work here, which is essentially taking up sides in a debate, which is the whole reason we moved that stuff over to a seperate article where it could live with a POV tag. Stbalbach 23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my most recent contribution to the article, which was written hours before you published the paragraph above, I have not mentioned the Nazis, the Holocaust or David Irving. Instead I have based my new examples on the trends English Civil War and the two articles in the Washington Post about Ronald Reagan. This is in line with what I wrote on this talk page "will for the moment removed the paragraph on David Irving until we have discussed it further. PBS 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)". So why have you written in the paragraph above "I believe what you have writen is one side of the argument against David Irving"?

I am confused by your request for sources. You state that "I have some familiarity with the Philosophy of History" yet a few days ago you thought my mentioning historiographical paradigms was original research, which is surprising for someone familiar with Philosophy of History. If original research was that easy, we would all be professors of history at a prestigious universities :-)

I noticed that you are already familiar with the English Civil War because you reverted some vandalism to the page on the 20th Jan 2005, which was before I mentioned it here. So I presume you are familiar with those sources and schools mentioned in the ECW article who have contributed different views on the origins of the war. I hope that the Washington Post is an adequate source for the secondary meaning for you.

As for Waterloo, I can not show you school books, but as an example if you use Google to search on [Halkett Cambronne Waterloo] and you will find nearly as many versions of the story here are web stites, many with a slant by nationality, here are three:

My motives as I have stated both on this talk page (and in a private email which you choose to publish here), is to make sure that this article reflects as fully as possible both meanings of the phrase "historical revisionism", because as I said in the private email to you "As someone who has a passion for history, I hope you realise how insidious Irving is to the profession and I look forward to working with you on developing the page further." Philip Baird Shearer 02:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you would try to influence my opinion and have me enter into collusion with you via private email is entirely against the nature and spirit of the transparant nature of Wikipedia. In fact my email address is not even published here, you searched it out from my blog pages or google. I don't make it hard to find in case there is a real need for someone to reach me, by the same token I don't publish it on Wikipedia inviteing people to email me. Some people post no personal information here, yourself included.

I have no idea what you email address is. I clicked on the "E-mail this user" box on the side of your home page, which if you have put am email address in your preferences emails you from inside Wikipedia. If you are using the standard skin it appears in the tool box area on the left of the screen. I can be reached by email using the the same method. Philip Baird Shearer

My mistake didnt know that was possible.Stbalbach

Second, I'm not talking about the factual information you posted. I'm talking about the first paragraph, specifically

Historians, like all people, are inexorably influenced by the zeitgeist (the spirit of the times). Developments in other academic areas, and cultural and political fashions, all help to shape the currently accepted model and outlines of history (the accepted historiographical paradigm). As time passes and these influences change so do most historians views on the explanation of historical events. Old paradigms may no longer be considered by most historians to explain how and why certain events in the past occurred, the accepted model is revised to fit in with the current agreed-upon version of events.

Who said this? There are various views on the nature of history and what history is. You present it like factual information, and its not that simple. --Stbalbach 02:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it otherwise it would be submitting "copyrighted work without permission." The first sentence is a rehash of the zeitgeist article "It denotes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era", but I am sure that I can find many more meanings of the word which would more than adequately cover the first sentence [4]. I do not wish to go through this paragraph clause by clause. Please give me a clause or a sentence which troubles you the most and I will try to find an adequate match, because it is rehash of many things I have read and would be covered in any first year study of historiographical paradigms. Indeed a Google search on [historiographical paradigms] turns up thousands and [zeitgeist historiographical paradigms] 138 of which one of the first I opened covers this topic in some detail [5]

This is where the problem is. I tried to edit what you wrote to reflect this is just one of many views, and you reverted my edits (with no explanation). So, the next strategy is to attribute the ideas you are expressing to a particular author. Now your saying the ideas dont belong to anyone. That is original research. You should be saying "Accoring to Thomas X, etc..." so that way I can say "A different view is held by Joe Y..." .. instead you present a philosophical outlook as fact with no attribution to anyone, and revert any edits contrary to your philosophical position.

According to the link you just posted[6], if you want to attribute this notion to Hegel thats fine, Hegel holds little water in postmodernist history and can be easily rebuffed. According to your second link by Mary Fulbrook [7], she says the exact opposite of what your saying when she says "I shall try to rescue some notion of historical truth or at least argue the case for spending our time trying to talk sense about the past, rather than nonsense about the impossibility of knowing the past". --Stbalbach 06:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But before I answer any more of your questions please answer mine first which I will repeat for clarity:

-- Philip Baird Shearer 04:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because it appears to me the narrative is essentially a rebutal of the Holocaust people, you dont need to mention it to see where it leads. There are a lot of ways to approach this problem, your approach is a very particular one. It emphesises certain words and ideas and leaves others out entirely. --Stbalbach 06:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of the paragraph on historical revisonisms second meaning

The paragrpah as it was originally written made little sense overall to me so I rewrote it so that it more clearly states the second meaning of historical revisionism as it is sometimes used today. I also removed some material that needed to be better explained in how it relates to this 2nd definition. Since that material is also included word for word in the [[Historical revisionism (political) article, I think it should simply be left out of this article and simply try and fix the paragraph in the other article so as to better explain the relevence of the articles and material quoted from them. --Cab88 13:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)