Talk:Historical negationism

Croatia

Browsing some recent edits I've noticed usage of non existing sources or misrepresenting of sources by very liberal misquoting.

Perception on historical negationism in Croatia during the 90's should be put in right context. Operation Labrador was a false flag operation carried out by the Yugoslavian Counterintelligence Service (KOS) during the early stages of the Croatian War of Independence. It was devised as a series of terrorist attacks intended to create an image of Croatia as a pro-fascist state. Operation Labrador was complemented by Operation Opera — a propaganda campaign devised by the KOS to feed disinformation to the media. This was added and sourced but one user deleted it.

Unfortunately this practice is continued by Republice of Serbia to derail the focus on Serbian denial of Bosnian genocide and The Holocaust in Serbia. View edits by users Sadko and Griboroski.

On Croatian-Israeli relationships after Franjo Tuđman changed some of controversial facts in his book. More can be found here (prof. Klasić, in Croatian).

https://www.jutarnji.hr/magazin/kako-je-doslo-do-renesanse-odnosa-hrvatske-i-izraela-ljubav-se-razvila-prije-dvije-godine-nakon-poteza-hrvatske-kojeg-u-tel-avivu-nisu-zaboravili/7662939

References

Australia and the United States

In the past year, editors have added in:

• The American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• The Australian history wars.
• Debate on whether the American treatment of indigenous people in California amounts to "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". As per 2023, the matter is "contentious" within the literature, according to Magliari (2023).

As examples of denialism or negationism. Yet all of these things are either not denied by anyone (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or simply debates on terminology on things essentially everyone agrees are crimes against humanity. It seems somewhat apples-to-oranges to me to compare these things in intent or influence to denying the Holocaust, or the Armenian genocide, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and the clean Wehrmacht myth. Tagging, @Roger 8 Roger:.

What do you think? I recently cut a lot of this stuff out of the article. KlayCax (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Do you agree with my edit or not? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I support your late March edit here, yes. I was referring to how a similar problem in happening in pages surrounding the United States. Editors are wrongly labeling things "denialist" that are debated within mainstream historiography.

(e.g. Claiming that "ethnic cleansing" is denialist when it's a majority position within the literature.) KlayCax (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to tag, @Roger 8 Roger:. KlayCax (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My latest removal, in its entirety, of the NZ section was because it was pointless. There is currently a 'pro-Maori' view throughout NZ that affects society in many different ways. The part I removed was wrapped up in that thinking. If there was genocide in NZ, it was in the Moriori genocide on the Chatham Islands in 1835 when a group of Maori invaded and annihilated them all (they were pacifist so it was easy. This was before Europeans had settled there). If they weren't killed they died of disease. The last full blooded Moriori died in 1933 or thereabouts. Whether the Maori invaders intended to kill off the whole race I don't know, but it happened. Although on a small scale, I think that better fits the description of genocide than a fringe theory about what happened in human history in NZ pre-1200, if anything did at all. NZ pre-history began around 1250 with the arrival of Polynesians, who became Maori, and who did not write so kept no written record. This was much later than elsewhere in the world. I agree about denialism - there was no denial of anything in NZ - there might have been a view that there were pre-Maori people there, but that was based on a lack of evidence, not on an intention to label Maori artificially as inferior. The part I think may have been genocide by Maori, ie about the Moriori, is now played down, I think because it sits uncomfortably with the pro-Maori approach being taken. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the situation to say, @Roger 8 Roger:. I'm a Hispanic dude from Wisconsin, lol. :P KlayCax (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

All good!:) We probably agree on the same underlying principle but use different examples. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you agree with me that the California genocide debate doesn't belong in the article + the Australian history wars doesn't belong either? I definitely think this is another section that shouldn't be in the article. A lot of these articles (since 2016) have become entangled in Anglophonic history wars surrounding race, gender, and sexuality, and it comes across as WP: POV pushing, even if it's done with the best of intentions.

Of course, I'm somewhat of an oddball in this. Most people who are considered "left-wing" in the United States generally support Keynesian economics and a sort of gender, race, and sexuality-focused (at least past the mid-2010s) or so historiographical view of the United States. I'm heavily influenced by historical materialism (or at least the material conditions within society) and see much of this history through economic lines and class. In my mind: one is much more threatening to the upper class than the other. (e.g. Endless debates over race, gender, and sexuality v. economic redistribution) I think that's why there's ultimately so much disagreement on this topic + overall American history.

Anyone can select, from an immense amount of historians, books that advocate one interpretation over the other. That's why — unless there is a consensus — neither view should be expressed in Wikivoice.

Interested in hearing your view. Ping, @Roger 8 Roger:. KlayCax (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Your second removal of this material without consensus is just as unacceptable as the first. There is no talk page consensus and your citation of Magliari is quite frankly ludicrous (as you have already been told on Talk:United States) These are the final words of his review of the Yale University source you deleted: Madley’s case for genocide is overwhelming and compelling in many specific instances. As his evidence makes plain, deliberately exterminatory campaigns devastated at least eighteen California tribes, including the Achumawi, Karuk, Lassik, Nisenan, Nongatl, Owens Valley Paiute, Pomo, Shasta, Sinkyone, Tolowa, Wailaki, Wappo, Whilkut, Wintu, Wiyot, Yana, Yuki, and Yurok. Beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt (and by the standards of any reasonable definition), genocide did in fact play a significant role in the US conquest and subjugation of Native California. (source accessible here via Wikipedia Library (Duke))

As often, your opening post is deceptive: this material has been in the entry since 8 June 2021 and so was not added "in the last year". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

"There is vigorous debate over the scale of Native American losses after the discovery of gold in California and whether to characterize them as genocide. The application of the term "genocide", in particular, has been controversial."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide#Academic_debate_on_the_term_%22genocide%22

Americans know about the atrocities done to Native Americans.

Might be applicable... 50 years ago. Flareonoak (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Decided to change username. Above user account is me. Forgot password. Pokeimonflareon (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

California's governor also called it a genocide: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/19/us/newsom-native-american-apology.html

Much different from Turkey. Pokeimonflareon (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The above accounts were created within hours of the restoration of the long-standing material, suggesting that the person running them has been following the page on a watchlist. The unsourced argument that publishers no longer pressure textbook authors does not show that they never did. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:

• As I stated on there, Ostler & Magliari were cited for their summaries of the present historiography, rather than their personal viewpoints in the paper. It shows that there is still a widespread, mainstream debate about it. (As recently as 2023)
• Roger 8 Roger is a long-term editor who also appears to have substantial issues with much of the current phrasing in the article on European colonization. I just asked + tagged him on the California genocide. (Since he has similar concerns about New Zealand.) Forget about Flareon here for a moment.

If we're going to include the California genocide debate in the article, then it should be something like your excellent summary of the current historiography on it here. (Which is an excellent summary.) Would you object to that? However, I think the topic should be broadened to "Western colonization" or something similar. It doesn't make sense to just focus on the California genocide over the Wounded Knee Massacre, Long Walk of the Navajo, and many other events that went along with the ethnic cleansing in the Western United States. Arguments that the settlement of what is now Australia, Canada, and United States is whitewashed has been key in domestic history wars, but it shouldn't be stated in Wikivoice.

And, yes. The SPA is correct. In my mind: it's ridiculous to state that the debates over genocide definitions (when both sides agree it was pure evil) are the same thing as denying the Holocaust or Armenian genocide. KlayCax (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think that essentially one historian (Clifford Trafzer) writing two papers in a relatively low impact (~2.5) journal (American Behavioral Scientist) is good enough to make such a sweeping claim. If we're going to make a section than it should be about the broader Anglophonic history wars and without a side being placed in Wikivoice. Would that work for you? Realize it's probably ambitious. KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the California or USA, situation or this ongoing discussion to comment. I changed the wording in the Australia section and removed the recently added NZ section. Despite my own views on those subjects, my actions were justified IMO on simple wikipedia edit principals - the wording was creating a personal opinion wp:weasel and what was written wasn't actually backed by what was said by the sources used, most of which were not independent reliable secondary sources anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with discussion about modifying elements of the text after gaining consensus, it is the wholesale unilateral whitewashing that I object to. Again, as noted in the articles written by a school textbook author with experience in the matter, policies existed against including the story of the eradication of various tribes in educational materials. This would seem to me to meet the definition of negationism. If you have sources that contest Trafzer and his co-authors' claims, now is the time to mention them. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:. Gary Clayton Anderson in Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America argues that it was not genocide, but, rather, ethnic cleansing.

A better version of the text would be:

• "Allegations of historical negationism have been made surrounding European settlement against the governments of Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand, in the history wars." and continuing onwards from that. Briefly explaining the debate between historians on what genocide is; Radical, liberal, and conservative historiography on the matter; how it is impacted the politics of the respective countries; and so on and so forth.
• Then linking to the "history wars" articles surrounding Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.

Ignoring the underlying (and broader) debate about colonization — focusing instead exclusively on the deaths of 2,000-13,000 indigenous peoples in California — makes no sense. KlayCax (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

For instance, @SashiRolls:, Australian prime minister John Howard made a (famous) statement that the actions the Australian government took against aboriginals shouldn't be classified as genocide. It would be much, much better if we explained the whole debate on whether European settlement and colonization was inherently and/or led to negationism. (And not making a "no, it wasn't" or "yes, it was" statement in Wikivoice)

Mentioning California is jarring and completely WP: UNDUE. (Sorry for the delayed response! I don't have as much time - due to my job - as I used to.) KlayCax (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The Iğdır monument doesn't mention 'genocide' on its plaque.

The file with the Iğdır monument was described as a symbol of the "Armenian genocide denialism" that allegedly accuses Armenia of commiitting genocide against the Turks, and not vice versa.

However, the term 'genocide' is not even mentioned on the entrance plaque of the monument.

Here is the text: Ermeniler tarafından katledilen şehit türkler. Anıt ve müzesi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r_Genocide_Memorial_and_Museum#/media/File:Ermeniler_Taraf%C4%B1ndan_Katledilen_%C5%9Eehit_T%C3%BCrkler_AM.jpg

Translation: Martyr Turks massacred by Armenians. Monument and museum.

The numerous massacres of the Turkish population by the enemies of the Ottoman Empire are well recognized and documented, and monuments in memory of their victims can not be considered as ana act of historical negationism. Hew Folly (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I restored the image and the sourced caption. The en.wiki name of the related article is Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum, while the tr.wiki article on the subject states: Ermeniler Tarafından Katledilen Şehit Türkler Anıt ve Müzesi[1][2][3][4][5] ya da eski adıyla Iğdır Soykırım Anıt ve Müzesi... (Memorial and Museum of Martyr Turks Murdered by Armenians, formerly known as Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum): [1]. It's appropriate to include the image in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

According to the official website of the local Culture Ministry branch,

Quote: Iğdır ve köyleri 1915-1920 yıllarında Ermeni katliamlarına en yoğun maruz kalan bölgelerden biridir. O dönemde Iğdır halkının büyük bir kısmı (seksen binden fazla) katledilmiş, sağ kalanlar ise kendi yurtlarını terk etmek zorunda kalmıştır. Bu nedenle "soykırım" anıtının Iğdır’ da yükseltilmesi doğal bir talepten ileri gelmektedir. Iğdır "soykırım" Anıtı, şimdi Türkiye’ nin en yüksek anıtı olup, yüksekliği 43.50 m. dir.

Translation: Iğdır and its villages are one of the regions most exposed to Armenian massacres in 1915-1920. At that time, most of the people of Iğdır (more than eighty thousand) were massacred, and the survivors had to leave their homeland. For this reason, the erection of the "genocide" monument in Iğdır comes from a natural demand. Iğdır "genocide" Monument is now the tallest monument in Turkey, its height is 43.50 m. [2]

As you might notice, the monument is officially dedicated to the events of the certaain locality while not extending to overcome any historical narrative or academic concept. Hew Folly (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is relied upon on secondary reliable sources, and the source unmistakably states that this monument promotes historical negationism and Armenian genocide denial: The Iğdır genocide monument is the ultimate caricature of the Turkish government's policy of denying the 1915 genocide by rewriting history and transforming victims into guilty parties. Marchand, Laure; Perrier, Guillaume (2015). Turkey and the Armenian Ghost: On the Trail of the Genocide. McGill-Queen's Press. pp. 111–112 Vanezi (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)