Talk:Historical negationism

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Censored quotes[edit]

Quotes added recently were not moved to talk. I am moving them here for MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to save him this work, since he repeatedly refuses to do it despite being asked MANY times by many users.
But MonsterHunter32 still needs to give full reasoning (for each removed quote) on the talkpage.
  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
  • As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved. --Jedi3 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Here you see an overview with the current status (which does not even include all of the deleted quotes):

Article Discussion page Number of censored quotes MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk? MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk? Current status
* Talk:Aurangzeb Almost 40 quotes. The quotes added on 23 March were NOT moved to talk. The previously added quotes were added to talk. Reasoning for ONE quote (Will Durant quote) given, but no consensus achieved. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the rest of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Somnath temple 2 quotes. Started deleting quote on 7 January, moved ONE quote to talk on 21 January. Second quote not moved to talk by MH32. Reasoning given for ONE quote, but no consensus achieved. Second DELETED quote needs reasoning. Comments from other editors needed. Comments from other editors about the Wilkie Collins quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Swami Vivekananda 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the DELETED quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Historical negationism 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Slavery in India 3 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim About 15 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Malabar rebellion 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

Deleted Quote[edit]

  • Negationism means the denial of historical crimes against humanity. It is not a reinterpretation of known facts, but the denial of known facts. The term negationism has gained currency as the name of a movement to deny a specific crime against humanity, the Nazi genocide on the Jews in 1941–45, also known as the holocaust (Greek: complete burning) or the Shoah (Hebrew: disaster). Negationism is mostly identified with the effort at re-writing history in such a way that the fact of the Holocaust is omitted.
    • Koenraad Elst.


MonsterHunter32's deletions[edit]

As was told to you multiple times by mulitiple editors, you have to have move quotes to the talkpage that you want to blank from the article, with an explanation. See Template:Remove --Jedi3 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Remove: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning. Otherwise the deletions can be reverted on that ground alone. But deleted quote is highly relevant and particularly apt as a definition of the concept of negationism. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to the continued refusal of User:MonsterHunter32 to move deleted quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning, as was told to him by many users many times, I am copying them here in one place (they are all India-related), so that others interested in the same topic area can comment on it in one place.

He was warned many times by multiple users that per Template:Remove the following is valid and must be observed:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

See Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32

He has done dozens of blankings of my additions, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary). .He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.

The deleted quote is a very memorable, eloquent, concise and apt definition. One of the criteria for quotes is it must be eloquent, memorable, and this quote is among all the definitions I have seen the most concise, apt and eloquent one, it pulls all the important points together. Also it is quoted for the same very reasons in books and other reports about the holocaust (for example 1."DEBUNKING HOLOCAUST DENIAL THEORIES: Two Non-Jews Affirm the Historicity of the Nazi Genocide", 2.in spanish El delito de negacionismo, 3.THE LAWS BANNING HOLOCAUST DENIA 4. in dutch "Ontmaskering van die Holocaust Ontkenningsteorieë",... ) not just in english but also dutch and spanish and other languages... --Jedi3 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed quotes[edit]

Removed and offered to voluntarily move quotes. I didn't move them earlier as I thought it would be better to discuss one article at a time. I removed these because I found them non-notable:

  • And funny though it may sound it was decided to falsify history to please the Muslims and draw them into the national mainstream. Guidelines for rewriting history were prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and a summary of the same appeared in Indian Express datelined New Delhi, 17 January 1982. The idea was 'to weed out undesirable textbooks (in History and languages) and remove matter which is prejudicial to national integration and unity and which does not promote social cohesion' ....
    The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education issued a notification dated 28 April 1989 addressed to schools and publishers suggesting some 'corrections' in the teaching and writing of 'Muslim rule in India' - like the real objective of Mahmud Ghaznavi's attack on Somnath, Aurangzeb's policy towards the Hindus, and so on. These guidelines specifically say: 'Muslim rule should not attract any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim invaders and rulers should not be mentioned.' One instruction in the West Bengal circular is that 'schools and publishers have been asked to ignore and delete mention of forcible conversions to Islam.' ... A row has been kicked up by some academicians who feel that the 'corrections' are unjustified and politically motivated....This experiment with untruth was being attempted since the 30's-40's by Muslim and Communist historians. .... History books are not written only in India; these are written in neighbouring countries also, and what is tried to be concealed here for the sake of national integration, is mentioned with pride in the neighbouring Muslim countries. Scholars in Europe are also working on Indian history and untruths uttered by India's secular and progressive historians are easily countered.
    • K.S. Lal, The Legacy of Muslim rule in India (also in K.S. Lal, Historical Essays)
  • And yet some writers delude themselves with the mistaken belief that they can change their country's history by distorting it, or brain-wash generations of young students, or humour fundamentalist politicians through such unethical exercise. To judge what happened in the past in the context of today's cultural milieu and consciously hide the truth, is playing politics with history. Let history be accepted as a matter of fact without putting it to any subjective interpretations. Yesterday's villains cannot be made today's heroes, or, inversely, yesterday's Islamic heroes cannot be made into robbers ransacking temples just for treasures. Nor can the medieval monuments be declared as national monuments as suggested in some naive 'secularist' quarters. They represent vandalism. No true Indian can be proud of such desecrated and indecorous evidence of 'composite culture'. 'History,' says Froude, 'does teach that right and wrong are real distinctions. Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral law is written on the tablets of humanity.' It is nobody's business to change this moral law and prove the wrongs of the medieval period to be right today by having recourse to misrepresentation of history. Manipulation in the writing of medieval Indian history by some modern writers is the worst legacy of Muslim rule in India.
    • K.S. Lal, The Legacy of Muslim rule in India (also in K.S. Lal, Historical Essays)
  • In a word, no forcible conversions, no massacres, no destruction of temples. ... Muslim historians of those times are in raptures at the heap of Kafirs [sic] who have been dispatched to hell. Muslim historians are forever lavishing praise on the ruler for the temples he has destroyed, ... Law books like The Hedaya prescribe exactly the options to which these little textbooks alluded. All whitewashed away. Objective whitewash for objective history. And today if anyone seeks to restore truth to these textbooks, the shout, "Communal rewriting of history."
    • Arun Shourie - Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud
  • How does this concern square with the guidelines issued by their West Bengal government... - "Muslim rule should never atttact any criticism. Destruction of temples by Muslim rulers and invaders should not be mentioned?
    • Arun Shourie - Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud
  • The whole tenor of this tendentious scheme for "national integration" becomes fully explicit in the following fiat from the Ministry of Education: “Characterisation of the medieval period as a dark period or as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden. Historians cannot identify Muslims as rulers and Hindus as subjects. The state cannot be described as a theocracy, without examining the actual influence of religion. No exaggeration of the role of religion in political conflicts is permitted… Nor should there be neglect and omission of trends and processes of assimilation and synthesis.”
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India (1994)
  • My heart sinks at the very idea of such a sinister scheme being sponsored by an educational agency set up by the government of a democratic country. It is an insidious attempt at thought-control and brainwashing....
    The only way which this ruling sees out of what it calls “the communal strife” is that Hindu history should be substantially diluted and tailored to the needs of Islamic imperialism, and that Muslim history should be given a liberal coat of whitewash or even made to pass muster as national history. This has been the main plank in the platform for “national integration”. Hitherto this Experiment with Untruth was confined mainly to Muslim and Communist “historians” who have come to control the Indian History Congress, the Indian Council of Historical Research, and even the University Grants Commission. Now it has been taken up by the National Integration Council. The Ministry of Education of the Government of India has directed the education departments in the States to extend this experiment to school-level text-books of history. And this perverse programme of suppressing truth and spreading falsehood is being sponsored by a state which inscribes Satyameva Jayate on its emblem....The rest is recommendations for telling lies to our children, or for not telling to them the truth at all.
    • Sita Ram Goel, The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India (1994)
  • It is important for Pollock that Muslims not be blamed for the decline of Sanskrit. He writes that any theory 'can be dismissed at once' if it 'traces the decline of Sanskrit culture to the coming of Muslim power'. ... The contradiction between his two accounts, published separately, is serious: Muslim invasions created a traumatic enough shockwave to cause Hindu kings to mobilize the 'cult of Rama' and therefore the Hindus funded the production of extensive Ramayana texts for this agenda. And yet, the death of Sanskrit taking place at the same time had little relation to the arrival of Muslims. When Hindus are to be blamed for their alleged hatred towards Muslims, the Muslims are shown to have an important presence; but when Muslims are to be protected from being assigned any responsibility for destruction, they are mysteriously made to disappear from the scene.
  • "How do you ignore history? But the nationalist movement, independence movement ignored it. You read the Glimpses of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru, it talks about the mythical past and then it jumps the difficult period of the invasions and conquests. So you have Chinese pilgrims coming to Bihar, Nalanda and places like that. Then somehow they don't tell you what happens, why these places are in ruin. They never tell you why Elephanta Island is in ruins or why Bhubaneswar was desecrated."