Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →
Archive
Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2


Contents

Merge Historical revisionism (negationism) here

See: Archive 2: Merge Historical revisionism (negationism) here

Does anyone object to me removed the merge templates as there does not seem to be a consensus for this merge? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I will remove them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Historical revisionism (academic)"

See: Archive 2: Discussion for previous discussion on this

WP:Neologism and/or WP:Original research

See Archive 2: WP:Neologism and/or WP:Original research for previous discussion on this.

See WP:Neologism and/or WP:Original research?

Citations in the lead

See WP:LEAD#Citations

Do we still need the [citation needed] in the lead section? If yes then is that true for both of them? Or can we assume that the sentences are a fair summation of the contents of the two articles?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

From Help:Archiving a talk page: "...you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." Is today's archiving an application of WP:IAR then? Ashanda (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure num 6. I do not think it is necessary, but copy back some text if you want to, or add a summary to this page for what has already been said. It is not something to get into an argument about. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good then. I'm not as familiar with the "move" style of archiving over the more common "cut and paste" so I didn't know of that rule. It makes sense in the context of the move type, thanks for enlightening me! Cheers! --Ashanda (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism

Main article: Page name

This should be the main page regarding all the different kinds. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism is already a disambiguation page. to all the different kinds. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (disambiguation)

Historical revisionism (disambiguation) should, and/or will be the DAM page. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as there are only two meanings for "Historical revisionism" it can have a {{otheusage}} type at the top of the lead. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Historical revisionism

Of which their's just one, will be here, It wil be All about HR. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Originally I agreed with you but, I came around to the view (held by other editors) that it is better to keep them as separate articles. Please show a consensus exists among editors before trying to merge them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What is Historical Revisionism


Revision


Not just controversial but pejorative

I reverted the edit because until a revision becomes accepted it is controversial. That is because historical revisionism is not a development of the current prevalent historical analysis, it is an attempt to radically change that view and anyone who tries to do that is going to stir up controversy. See for example the controversy surrounding Historical revisionism#French attacking formations in the Napoleonic wars. This was controversial, but no one has suggested that it was illegitimate historical revisionism. On the other hand this article "Revisionist fringe gathers for Iran's Holocaust denial jamboree" by Angus McDowell on 12 December 2006 is using the term revisionist with pejorative meaning in the way British media often does. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed "pejorative" because it is not the definig distinction. I was hesitant about "controversial", because I was aware of the resons you cite. If you noticed I wrote a different phrasing. It still draws the distinction poorly. And the definitions are self-made. And both articles are a big bunch of original research. I have no idea how I can struggle with OR in wikipedia and I am not sure I want to waste my time on this, especially in such heated topics. Laudak (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The definition of Historical revisionism (negationism) as "attempts to rewrite history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts" is a mere sweeping the distinction further under the carpet, namely hiding it into the single word "fact", which is supposed to mean something cast in stone. The "legitimate" revisionism also often questions statements considered to be undisputable "facts". In fact the word "fact" itself is greatly abused in such discourses. Laudak (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of the term by Historian and the media to describe Irving and others like him is using the term in a pejorative way, or do you think that when the they use the term they are not using it in a pejorative description? As for the description it is meant to be a brief description on what Historians like Evans say:
Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account and if necessary amend their own case accordingly. They do not present as genuine documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious but implausible and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments if this is the case, or indeed abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources which in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximise the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not wilfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events for which there is no historical evidence in order to make their arguments more plausible
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Colleague, please allow me to remind you that while it is a talk page and you are just trying to convince me in something, please keep in mind that unless you provide a reference which clearly and directly says "HisRsm is a pejorative term", all our chat is nothing but OR. As for the above quoted diatribe, it is applicable to any dishonest scientist, which are plentiful an all areas of research, hence cannot serve as a definition of "historical revisionist". Laudak (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I think I have found the correct word, "dishonest", which distinguishes the two flavors of HR. But again, what we need is a solid reference into the article, not our opinion. Laudak (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Vote
  • Oppose Revisionism is a process within the historical profession -- the series of quotes from historians that I've added to the article demonstrate this. The proposed unnecessary renaming would suggest that the article is simply about individual historians who might belong to some particular revisionist school. For example, within Reconstruction historiography, there is a very specific group of historians referred to as the revisionist school. However they were followed by a school just as equally using revisionist principles that was referred to as the post-revisionists. Kenneth Stampp is a member of the revisionist Reconsruction school, but is not a member of the revisionist school as it refers to Civil War historians although he also uses revisionst methods in his Civil War studies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a process of accumulation of known facts, new facts and interpretations. It is a process, not people who work within the academic field and may accomplish it. I also believe the lede currently puts a negative spin on this process, which seems less than neutral. It may be better stated as follows: Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the critical reexamination of historical facts, using either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information, with an eye towards revising how histories are written. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the notability of the topic is high. If the article needs to be edited to clearly reflect that it is a separate issue to what should be at another article. Paul foord (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - proposal is an arbitrary delimiting of the scope of the article. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
For the reasons stated above, the Article should be moved like so: Historical revisionism → Revisionist historians. --Ludvikus (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:consensus an opinion poll, if they happen at all should come at the end of the debate not the start of one. I am opposed to such a move. See the examples section. This is about the process of historical revisionism not the historians who propose such revisions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But look at the page's own source (Ludvikus (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)): "Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:"
"The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution. *http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm --Ludvikus (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you try to put Holocaust Deniers into the same category as legitimate historians. It isn't going to work. McPherson's intent is clear and your attempt to "revise" it makes no sense within the common usage of the English language. You would apparently disagree with the following statement:
Historical revisionists practice historical revisionism.
Yet the statement is, in fact, a truism.
Your claim that McPherson is only talking about individuals rather than process is directly contradicted by the context and content of both the paragraph quoted and the entire source. You have made three or four different efforts to somehow eliminate this article (using the same arguments with each reincarnation), and have garnered no support. How about sticking with one proposal, give it a month or so for people to contribute to it, and then move on if you haven't developed a consensus for change? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your respectful recommendation and advice. I think I shall do that. I will try to leave this page for one month as you recommend. However, I would like you, and the other Wikipedians to consider some issues I am concerned. After that, I shall say "Good bye for one month to this page." Give me a moment to itemize my concerns, briefly, and I promise you that I shall ponder the issue for "one month."
  1. I believe, after some detailed study, that the source of the material (of our article) is this Web site:http://www.revisionists.com/ [3] --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. I was there just a moment ago & I thought it useful to develop a WP:List showing (1) who these people are and, (2) what they stand for. But though I spent some time compiling such a list, it was Speedily Delete, after I had put up a {{hangon}} Tag on it. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. I would like all of you to have the benefit of that list on which I spent a considerable amount of time supplying Internal links to the individuals named there. --Ludvikus (talk)
  4. ["I'll be back"/"I shall return" - before I leave for that one-month vacation from here.] --Ludvikus (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. Here's what I ask. I worked hard on the following, but it was Speedily Deleted - after I Tagged it Hangon. I ask that you all look at what I've done regarding that list. Unfortunately, I think, User:Bootlesthecat had labeled it for such deletion. So I think he has already made up his mind. I ask him now again to reconsider. My point is that it would be useful for us to have this list because it helps identify who exactly expounds the views which are the subject of this article.
  1. Here's the item that was deleted: List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians). --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your list represents exactly who IS NOT the subject of this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I have now a consensus that I'm understood, and that you will consider carefully all the related issues I have raised so that I can say Good bye (to this article) for a month? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion was not that you take a vacation. What I would hope you would do is give this latest attempt your absolute best effort and then, after a month or so, if there is no consensus to institute your proposed changes, drop your efforts forever -- or at least for a very long time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians) that Ludvikus put together was a terrible idea. Firstly when it includes a statement like "All productive and worthwhile historical writing is “revisionist”". It follows that someone who finds a new detail that confirms or enforces an historical paradigm is either an unproductive historian or a revisionist! Further if someone is a successful revisionist and that person's view overthrows the established unorthodoxy that person becomes the new orthodoxy, so should they be in or out of the list (or is the list of unsuccessful revisionists)? For example was Christopher Hill a revisionist in 1940 and should he be in such a list even though his view on the English Civil War became the established view. If so what does that make historians like Lawrence Stone? (see Glenn Burgess Historiographical reviews on revisionism: an analysis of early Stuart historiography in the 1970s and 1980s, The Historical Journal, 33, 3 (1990), p p . 609—627). What about people like A.J.P. Taylor, in some fields he was a major historian in others his views were a minority point of view, in or out of the list? Should A.J.P. Taylor be in the same list as David Irving (of whom most academic historians no longer recognise as an historian, but he is often called such in newspapers)?
I second Tom (North Shoreman)'s view " I would hope you [Ludvikus] would do is give this latest attempt your absolute best effort and then, after a month or so, if there is no consensus to institute your proposed changes, drop your efforts forever" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The article was deleted because it was a copyright violation. There's no "reconsidering" deletion of copyrighted material, it's more or less automatic. And I might agree with the others above. If you can produce a very good draft of your proposal, it would certainly be given all due attention. That often is the best way to deal with contentious material, in fact. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See extensive discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Request terminated as the request was not page not listed at WP:RM and the author of the request has been blocked from editing.[4] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism → Revisionist historians — The so-called "legitimate Historical revisionists" are in reality - and by the scholarly community - known as "Revisionist historians" —Ludvikus (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Strong support - for the reasons stated above. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • The "Historical revisionists" discussed in the article do not subscribe to the "philosophy" of "Historical revisionism," which connotes a perjorative.
  • Rather, the are known as "revisionist historians." The "legitimate: his torians are known as "Revisionist historians" and the have nothing to do with the two-word expression "historical revisionism."
  • Accordingly, the artcle should be renamed "revisionist historians." --Ludvikus (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Archive 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.