Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 25 September 2009

History B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2 Archive 3

Additional examples?

Recent work has shown that bushido was less important than massacres by U.S. troops, for the low numbers of Japanese prisoners taken in World War II. I guess that counts as revisionism. See for example American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs' or Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#The_Pacific.

2 other examples could be the topic of wartime rape, as exemplified in these 2 articles.

• "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

• An ethical blank cheque (Publisher book summary available here)

--Stor stark7 03:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Guilt themes

The term "historical revisionism" in the period 1920s-1960s meant a reversal of moral judgmnent regarding wars, espe WW1, WW2, Civil War, Reconstruction, and Cold War. The term is still in use (esp regarding Cold War). The is quiote distrinct from incremental changes on the one hand, and denial (as in Holocaust denial) on the other. I added a section with complete citations to the scholarly literature. Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

these examples are no different from others, that represent an alteration of views and probably do not represent a paradigm shift (as happened several times over the interpretation of the causes of the English Civil War), however I have shifted them down to examples see what you think. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

the war examples are entirely different, and so important that they dominated discussion of the topic for most of the 20th century. The guilt themes continue of great importance esp regarding the Cold War. They are not so much debates about new facts or methods, but debates about guilt -- as in who was guilty of starting World War I. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition in the lede paragraph has to be broad enough to incorporate all the examples that are given, and needs to mention historiography. So I revised and simplified it.Rjensen (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the archives you will see that the previous introduction was the result of a disagreement in April and May this year between editors. The principle dissenting editor is now blocked. So your re-write is as far as I am concerned welcome. However I think "reversal" should be replaced with "revision" (it is not always a reversal see for example interpretations of the English Civil War, and "guilt" needs to be removed from the introduction as that is not the emphasis in most cases of revision and guilt is just on facet that may be up for revision. Also that we need to add the word interpretation to the sentence "The assumption is that history as it was accepted needs significant changes." to something like "The assumption is that the interpretation of an historical event or period as it is accepted needs significant change."

Also to follow the recommendations in WP:LEAD, the lead also needs expanding to give a one sentence summary of the major sections in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the lede some more. It's awkward to define "revisionism" using the word "revision." As for guilt, well yes that is the central theme in discussions on the causes of wars. (It is not a theme in many other topics, like how well did this general perform.) I agree on the assumption is that the interpretation of an historical event or period as it is accepted needs significant change. and will change that now. Rjensen (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

FL outlawing "revisionism"

I made a few common sense changes to lead and first section. FYI - I wandered over her after finding a couple stories about Florida under Jeb Bush outlawing any kind of historical revisionism in FLorida schools a couple years back. Obviously there are more important things this article needs, like more details on some of the bigger exposes, like delay in getting info about Pearl Harbor attack to officers in charge there. (A big issue in the 1960s when I was in college.) But just in case anyone thinks it's of interest, here are couple of best sources. (Couldn't find evidence one way or other, so I don't know if it's been repealed since then):

• Revisionists, get out of Florida - Los Angeles Times
• [http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/news/2006/6/7/florida_law_banning_revisionist_history_ignores_the_past_zimmerman_writes Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ...
• Out of Control: revisionist History in Florida Privatization Reason Magazine

CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What you cite is interesting. I think you demonstrate the need of an article, "The Bushes on revisionism." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The writing in this article strikes me as very biased. The first section advocates revisionism, and attacks those who maintain status quo. The first paragraph starts with listing awards of a person (Pulitzer Prize winning), before presenting the argument the person makes. Using authority to push point of view is not the best way to argue a position. It sounds as a blatant advertisement of revisionism. An extreme example is the paragraph starting with "If there were a universally accepted view of history that never changed, there would be no need to research it further." which sounds like a plan to keep historians employed rather an argument for revisionism. I would be surprised if, for example, views expressed in the quote by David Williams were universal, especially outside United States. Boris Bukh (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was necessarily biased one way or another; I would say that it currently is narrowly framed from a historian's point of view (i.e. those who most commonly and closely deal with the subject). A different POV, less-than-adequately included, with examples, is the effect revisionism had/has on the world. Another missing aspect of the subject is notable political or traditional resistance/opposition to legitimate 'Accession of New Data'-revisionism. Certainly, the current intro paragraph is a poor implementation of WP:LEAD summarizing the rest article. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Usually historians work within a paradigm. Revisionism is linked to challenging the status quo and if they are successful a paradigm shift can be said to have occurred (and to the victor the laurels) but more often revisionist theories are rejected and those who put them forward never reach the height of their profession. If this is not clear to people who read this article then we need to add it. I agree the sentence "If there were a universally accepted view of history ..." needs changing because lots of good history can be done filling in the details of a period without it being revisionist. It is only when that detail starts to refute the overall view that a revision of the interpretation of the period may be needed. This is just as true in history as it is in the sciences. --PBS (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Kolko, William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and others

These are at least the four (4) famous revisionist historians who are particularly famous, and who explicitly fall under said label. I haven't yet checked, but the article can only be justified by a substantial reference to these historians. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your previous efforts to eliminate this article failed to receive any support, let alone consensus. Now you are claiming that "the article can only be justified" if it includes "substantial" discussion of people you consider relevant to the article. This is, to say the least, a unique take on wikipedia policy. While additional relevant info certainly can and should be added to the article, based on previous discussions there is no need to reconsider whether this article should be eliminated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained below, I'm only interested in writing about this, possibly "school," of historians known as "revisionists" or "revisionist historians." I'm not interested in writing about "historical revisionism." So I only object to the REDIRECT. In the alternative, I wish that an appropriate DISAMBIGUATION be done - perhaps in addition to a separate article on these historians. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

POV Fork

Prior to his long block, Ludvikus engaged in a long debate (see archive 3) attempting to make a distinction between "Historical revisionism" and "revisionist historians". Among his first edits on being unblocked was to change the page Revisionist historians from a redirect to this article to its own article. His very first sentence, "A designation in American history which includes Gabriel Kolko, William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and others", shows the direction of the intended POV fork -- an effort to treat historical revisionism as an American phenomena rather than a practice engaged in universally (as this article makes clear). I have restored the REDIRECT page and urge Ludvikus to seek consensus before making any other changes to that article or related articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact a usage, in American historiography in which "revisionists historians" refers precisely to that group of historians. I would appreciate it very much if this issue was discussed, rather than reverted without discussion. The above also misrepresents what I've done. I'm not interested in writing about "historical revisionism." Rather, I'm interested in writing about these enumerated historians who are known as "revisionists." I therefore think there should NOT be a REDIRECT. In the alternative, perhaps a DISAMBIGUATION would be appropriate. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And here are two (2) references to show that the "POV Fork" is not my editing, but the Reversion: : and . Furthermore, a reference to the "block" is inappropriate, and does not contribute to the argument that the five (5) named historians are known as "revisionists" in American historiography (yet I see no entry for any of them in the article to which the Reversion was made - the article herein: "historical revisionism." --Ludvikus (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation

Because the article herein does not even discuss the following "revisionists" - who are commonly described by scholars as such - I recommend both Disambiguation, and that Revisionist historians (Americans) receive a separate article: Gabriel Kolko, William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, Walter LaFeber, Howard Zinn and others. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is there a distinct historiography by the name of "historical revisionism"?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Comment regarding James M. McPherson:

I have re-read this historians Web-posted article on Revisionist historians. I do not believe he intends there to express a new historiography. And if he does, it's his own. Therefore, this article, which appears based on his writing, is a WP:neologism, or WP:original research. What he's doing, in this 2003 article, is a critique of Bush's use of the term "revisionist" to attack those who were critical of the US war in Iraq. The article at issue is this:

• From the President's column column of the September 2003 Perspectives, Revisionist Historians By James McPherson--Ludvikus (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong on several counts. In the first place, this article IS NOT based solely, or even largely, on the McPherson article. In the second place, the quote is clear and it is only your ORIGINAL RESEARCH that claims otherwise. But thanks for sharing.

As far as the title of your RFC, you've got that wrong too. Nobody claims that there is a "distinct historiography by the name of 'historical revisionism.'" You need to reread the lede and focus on what it actually says. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So maybe it's poorly written. The article appears to say that there is a distinct historiography known as "historical revisionism." But I have failed to find any reference in it which explicitly supports that position - except for the McPherson article. And it is clearly being misread to support this article. What happened in 2003 was grounds for McPherson to criticize the Bush Administration. One of the things that McPherson is saying is that all good historians are Revisionists. And he proceeds to explain what the craft of a historian entails. He also attacks the Bush Administration, particularly Rice, for her views, and makes reference to the revisionists of the 1970's (the initial Holocaust deniers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but I do not understand doublespeak. Here's your exact "lede":

    Within historiography, that is the academic field of history,
    historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence,
    motivations and decision-making processes surrounding an historical event.
    The assumption of the revisionist is that the interpretation of a historical event or period
    as it is accepted by the majority of scholars needs a significant change.

This "lede" clearly says that the article is about a particular historiography, does it not? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, please refrain from ad hominems. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And the "lede" is wrong to the extent that it says: "historiography" = "the academic field of history." Do you wish to make the correction? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that the lede DOES NOT say the article is about a particular historiography. And historiography certainly is part of the academic field of history. Are you suggesting perhaps another preposition is in order? Easily fixed.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's Encyclopedia Britannica on what is "Historiography": . --Ludvikus (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Accordingly, it's more accurate to say that it is "about" history (it's methodology, perhaps), rather then "with the field of", no? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. We can name most of the revisionists, or historical revisionists.
2. We can even - therefore - identify the texts that are so characterized.
3. And there are some texts by such "revisionists" in which this "subject" or "term" is discussed.
4. We even know that there's a link between it and holocaust denial.

But the above article consists of mostly WP editors generalizing about what those "terms" ("historical revisionism" or "revisionist historians") are - by mostly "original research." --Ludvikus (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Jeff Riggenbach, commenting on Gore Vidal, American revisionism has three (3) divisions:

    "...Vidal's vision of American history does rest on a solid foundation in historical scholarship.
    But there is also a long answer to the question, and it runs as follows:
    the historical scholarship that verifies Vidal's account of American history
    is scattered throughout the historical record of the last century and a half,
    but most of it is the product of one or more of the three closely interrelated "revisionist" movements
    that emerged in American historiography during those years.
    These three movements are the "New History," whose leading practitioners later came to be called "the Progressive historians";
    the rebellion of the "New Left Historians" that began creating consternation within the historical profession during the 1960s and '70s;
    and the closely related revisionist movement established in the 1960s by a new group of libertarian historians
    — a movement which only now, nearly half a century later, is at last gaining the adherents and generating the excitement that have long eluded it."

• Hope this reference helps us write better articles on these terms, the root of which is "revision." --Ludvikus (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class history articles
• High-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment