Template talk:Falsification of history

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles

Crime and Criminal Biography

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles

delete this template

I think that this template is already a POV nightmare and is wide open to be an abuse of WP:BLP. --PBS (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep that one but consider moving to Template:Falsification of history. The term Falsification of history redirects to the article Historical revisionism (negationism). Yet, in my view, the term Falsification of history is wider. The label historical revisionism is more often associated with Holocaust denial, not so much Soviet fabrications, e.g. Holodomor denial. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll move it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British Government does not recognise the Armenian genocide as a genocide it recognises it as a crime against humanity (which it has done since 1915), that does not make the British government a revisionist organisation. Further this template placed on the biography of a living person can not be sourced and as such is a breach of WP:BLP. --PBS (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governments (or organisations for that matter) are not listed in the template, so that's bit of a straw man argument. Martintg (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of particular legal classification of the Armenian genocide is a separate issue from denying that the events commonly called Armenian genocide happened in the first place. This template is about falsification of facts of history, not about differences in their interpretation. Interpretations can vary; they can be subject to radically different POVs -- but facts are the same for everybody. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denial that it was a genocide is what the term "Denial of the Armenian genocide" means. Whether that is for legal interpretation, or a denial of the facts is why this is far too complicated a subject to have in a footnote template. --PBS (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is the link Holodomor (Denial of the Holodomor) one can accept that huge numbers of people died in the famine without accepting that the Soviet government caused the famine as genocidal policy which is the position of the Russian Government (see Genocides in history#Soviet Union and Holodomor genocide question) to list it under falsification of history. This is again a very complicated topic to be grouped up nto a "Falsification of history" footnote template. --PBS (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a complicated topic. However Denial of the Holodomor is not about denying it was genocide (that is covered in Holodomor genocide question), but denying that a famine took place at all. While the Russian Government doesn't deny the existence of the famine, the Soviet Government certainly did. Martintg (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this template? It looks to me as if it is being used in a biased way to link all sorts of articles together and as a way to bypass the restrictions on WP:BLP "No I am not accusing this person of being a falsifier this template is just a useful navigation aid." --PBS (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template was originally called "Template:Historical revisionism (negationism)" before it was moved to this current title. In my view I think I prefer the original title, since "Falsification of history" implies a narrower meaning in the sense of an Orwellian rewriting of historical facts that was practiced during Stalin's time. On the other hand, historical revisionism is more to do with re-interpreting (or even disputing) historical facts. Martintg (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having myself initially expressed the idea of moving, I think, too, that we need a broader consensus. Any other suggestions as to the future title? --Miacek (t) 11:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Genocide disputes", accurate and NPOV. Izzedine (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Denial of the Nanking Massacre as few agree it was a genocide. But this is a general problem which reading the introduction to the Genocide denial makes clear:

Where there is near universal agreement that a genocide occurred, genocide denial is usually considered a form of illegitimate historical revisionism. However, in circumstances where the event in dispute is not seen to constitute genocide by the majority of scholars, the use of the term may be an ad hominem by those who argue that a genocide occurred.

In articles one can simply use the formula suggested in the WP:NPOV policy section "A simple formulation", but here one has to make an editorial judgement about what the majority position is as to whether to include an article link or not. This has the potential for endless POV edit wars. No one yet has explained what the function of this template and if that in their opinion outweighs the real likelihood of its abusive use. I will nominate this template for deletion unless this issue is seriously discussed here and a consensus can be reached. --PBS (talk)

Samizdat and tamizdat

Should samizdat and tamizdat be mentioned in this template? On one hand, they're not examples of falsification of history; on another, the very necessity of these forms of underground publication are causally related to Soviet falsification of history (and many other topics) for ideological purposes. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I am not quite sure what was the reason for deletion of these links. Indeed, most of the Soviet historiography served exclusively for the purpose of Soviet propaganda, and as such is no different from the Lysenkoism. Let's keep it there.Biophys (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A random attack of violence, probably. Everybody even passingly familiar with Soviet views of history understands that Soviet scientists could only study history accurately up to the late medieval era. This might be why so many Russian people with talent for history have studied the Viking culture, Byzantine history and South America's pre-Columbian cultures, and so few have studied modern history. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification of history is not Historical revisionism

From the history of the page

17:50, 9 July 2009 Russavia (moved Template talk:Falsification of history to Template talk:Historical revisionism over redirect: npov)
20:05, 9 July 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (moved Template talk:Historical revisionism to Template talk:Falsification of history over redirect: reverted move. Historical revisionism is not the falsification of history)

--PBS (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that this template should be deleted. --PBS (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title abuses the term "falsification".

Properly, falsifiability refers to the fundamental principle that scientific theories shall be possible to disprove. Since most countries passed their first laws against holocaust denial in the 1970s, there was plenty of time to falsify, and yet falsification failed, validating that holocaust really happened. A scientific term shall not be used to describe pseudoscientific bullshit. The whole template should be merged with some genocide denial category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.107.126 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Vladimir Žerjavić

I don't think Vladimir Žerjavić can reasonably be described as a "revisionist" or a "denier".

Žerjavić's WWII Yugoslav casualty figures have been rather closely matched by Bogoljub Kočović (who seems to be absent from this list), and have since gained mainstream acceptance. Today, it is generally accepted that Yugoslav WWII casualties were significantly lower than 1.7 million, and - in particular - that much fewer than 700,000 have been killed in Jasenovac.

Apart from that, while a typical revisionist invariably has a political agenda, I'm not aware of any such topics in Žerjavić's works - he was a demographer, and as far as I can tell, his published works generally stick to demographics, without delving into politics or ideology.

I'm not sure what's the criterion for this list, but I don't think simply putting there everyone who has ever been called a "denier" is acceptable. GregorB (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out here, and above, the list of names will never be complete or balanced. Who decides who is a denier? For the most obvious cases, eg Holocaust denial, it is very obvious. In other cases, it is not at all. For example, the definition of Rwandan genocide denial is contested, making it difficult to label certain minority viewpoints (such as Barrie Collins, for instance) as denialist or not denialist. We could put a great number of Turkish politicians in the template for denial of the Armenian genocide, or a great number of Serbian / Bosnian Serb politicians in for Bosnian genocide denial. That would improve WP:WORLDWIDE at the cost of serious BLP issues. Furthermore, the list of names already dominates the template without being very helpful for navigation, because it doesn't state what the people are accused of denying. (t · c) buidhe 21:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: If the article on the person says they are a denier, and that is supported by a citation from a reliable source, then the person should be listed here. Those who are not supported in this way can be removed.
As for the list never being complete, so what? We don;t shy away from presented factual material simply because it can never be complete. The entire encyclopedia can never be complete, and within it are numerous lists which are not complete and probably never will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the list were complete it would include Milorad Dodik and Aleksandar Vucic, who deny the facts of Srebrenica and other Serb war crimes[1], the Rwandan government which inflates the number of Tutsi victims and denies its own war crimes, most of the Kosovo political leadership which denies that the KLA committed any crimes, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, other RS vehemently deny that this would be an accurate classification. You say it's "simple", but RS often differ on what is denialist or not. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers have a saying: "Hard cases make bad law." Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look up and you'll see GregorB, PBS, and others raising issues with the issues of classifying people in the template, while on the other side is just one editor: yours truly. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I challenged the inclusion of Žerjavić, and possibly the criteria, but not the actual concept of inclusion of individuals in the template. That being said, at the moment I'm leaning towards the removal of the list. GregorB (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this template include a list of names?

There is a consensus to remove the Proponents section from the template. Chetsford (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this template include a list of "proponents"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - The list of name (originally called "People" has been in the article since its created in April 2009 [2], and, indeed, appears to have been the original purpose of the template. Now an editor insists upon removing the list because (1) it's difficult to define who is a denier, and (2) the list can never be complete. I answered both of these objections above: (1) just as with any information on Wikipedia, reliable sources determine whether someone is a denier or not, and (2) the incompleteness of a list is no reason not to have a list -- in fact, Wikipedia is replete with incomplete lists, and we even has a "this list is incomplete, please expand it" template: Template:Incomplete list
Despite these explanations, the editor continues to remove the list, on the grounds that ine other editor agrees with them. My opinion is that the list is the heart and core of the template, and needs to stay, especially since no policy-based reason has been given for removing it, and the so-called "consensus" to remove it (2 editors to 1) is insufficient and not necessarily representative of the editors interested in this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The issue here is that historical denialism is not as clear cut as BMK thinks. Although certain forms of denialism are very obvious (eg. Holocaust denial), others are much less so (the definition of Rwandan genocide denial is disputed, as is negationism of Soviet crimes). Either we have the courage to put world leaders such as Dodik, Aleksandar Vučić, and Erdogan [3] as well as influential Mao deniers from China[4] in the template or else it looks highly biased by omitting the some of the highest profile deniers of historical facts. Either way, it's a BLP and POV mess, because almost always it's disputed whether there is falsification, and in the case of high-profile deniers (rather than the lunatic fringe) they obviously have supporters. Alternately, we could use a concrete criteria such as "people convicted of genocide denial". Unfortunately, that would include the likes of Victoire Ingabire who was convicted of such just because she disagrees with the Kagame regime[5]. (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your idea of a solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I agree with Bilorv below, in that I do not think it is particularly useful to lump all historical negationists into one list. Second, I can't think of a way to keep the names and comply with core content policy (especially NPOV). With a list of names, we're either going to have a systematic bias issue (a type of POV), where as present most of the "deniers" are from the lunatic fringe that claim the Holocaust did not occur. If this is countered, then you have a different POV issue where you get into lesser known and more contentious denials of historical crimes by, among others, the governments of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Rwanda, Republika Srpska, Kosovo, the list goes on and on—where RS do not agree as to what exactly is negationism/not negationism, it is POV for Wikipedia to decide. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, divide up the list, then, I think that's a good idea, just don't delete it, which is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. 04:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The list of names would be better suited for a template dedicated to Holocaust denial in particular. I don't think that it would be possible to come up with a list of Rwandan genocide deniers, for instance, given that a plethora of definitions are used. A list of people convicted of Rwandan genocide denial would mostly consist of political opponents of the current government who did not actually deny the genocide. (t · c) buidhe 04:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No/split: I see a use in a navbox which lists notable Holocaust deniers, deniers of the Rwandan genocide etc. I do not see a use in a navbox section that lists these people altogether, jumbled in a random order. I also think the navbox is too large and in need of splitting. If there are people/groups that deny multiple genocides then list them in multiple navboxes, but I do not believe this would be infeasible as it seems like most figures are best-known for denial of one particular tragedy. — Bilorv (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from this template, maybe use targeted sub-lists somewhere else. Right now, the list of proponents is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The list is also BLP-bait. One or more lists of people who are known primarily or significantly as proponents of particular flavors of negationism/denialism (e.g., David Irving and Ernst Nolte for Holocaust denialism, Gunnar Bergström for Cambodian genocide denial, etc.) may be helpful if the lists are strongly constrained. As it is here, this is just a collection of "people who have at one time or another been linked to some form of negationism or denialism", which does violate the Core Content Policies (especially WP:OR and WP:NPOV) and therefore has BLP implications for some of the included persons. For example, Hitler is included; what version of the listed negationist positions are we supposed to think he was a proponent of? Holocaust denial (ludicrous)? "Clean" Wehrmacht myths (even worse)? The only possible position (the Dolchstoßlegende) is not one of the negationist positions included in the template. Another example is Robert Sungenis, known primarily as a solarcentrist and young-earth creationist and not significantly as a proponent of any of the listed negationist positions. These individual problems can be easily addressed but as long as the template has a place to add people that is not well-defined then the template will attract poorly-sourced additions that are non-policy-compliant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Buidhe. I don't think it is realistic to expect ongoing neutrality from a piss-off huge list like this (which, because it's in a navbox, can't have anything in the way of citations or clarifying remarks). Moreover, people who deny the existence of atrocities either do so for one in particular, or a set of them drawn along ideological lines; to describe them as "proponents of historical negationism" implies that they advocate falsifying history in a general sense, which is hard to even imagine: Ah, yes, I'm just overall in favor of saying that things didn't happen -- no, I don't have a specific objection to any one thing, I just think that when people say something happened, it's good to say that it didn't? jp×g 11:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove names, especially those of living persons as obvious hooks for BLP violations. I checked one unfamiliar name at random and there was no mention whatsoever of historical falsification in his article other than this template. The only person who could possibly belong in this list is David Irving, and he could be covered by adding Irving v Penguin Books Ltd to the case law section instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveosaurus (talk • contribs) 07:50, November 21, 2020 (UTC)
Excellent point, Daveosaurus. Irving v. Penguin deserves inclusion entirely separately from this discussion and I've added it to that section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for all the reasons I have listed on this page. Nothing I have read in the discussion since my last posting has convinced me to alter my opinion. See the section Denialism#Prescriptive and polemic for further arguments why sources that claim someone is a denier may not be a disinterested party.- PBS (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. There are many problems here, from the inclusion criteria to possible WP:BLP concerns. I can't imagine e.g. a {{Terrorism}} template that lists prominent (or all?) terrorists. Even a hypothetical List of genocide deniers would have its share of problems. Generally speaking, complex, subjective, or controversial memberships are best left out of templates. GregorB (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nakba Denial move

Regarding a recent attempted move of Nakba Denial from "Other manifestations" to Genocide/Mass Killings denial.

Neither the Nakba denial or Nakba articles center on genocide or mass killings (let alone denial of). Asking for justification and clear citation before a subsequent move is attempted again. Thanks.

Mistamystery (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first group is for Genocide denial / denial of mass killings and atrocities, which it still falls under. Genocide or not, many Palestinians consider the events of the 1948 Palestine war to be an atrocity. And denial or downplaying of the expulsion and flight of Palestinians has undeniably happened, which is sourced on both pages. XTheBedrockX (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per criteria laid out on List of genocides:

DO NOT add genocides that clearly do not meet the UN criteria, i.e., killing of economic or political groups, or "cultural genocides/ethnocides." Provide sources that demonstrate the genocide is recognised as such by significant mainstream scholarship under the most common definition (the legal definition) of genocide. Remember WIKIPEDIA is not a WP:SOAPBOX. For highest and lowest estimates, do not use unreliable sources or sources which give significantly different figures than mainstream research.

Mistamystery (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]