[Patchman123]

Originally Posted by CCIP

That's an awfully influential source to be angry about. Reading things somewhere, in California I believe, is a great way to get into an intellectual debate.

There's also a difference between historical revisionism and considering a wider range of factors in making interpretations than previously.

There is also a big question about what exactly is ACCEPTED and why we have to accept it and stick to one interpretation.

There is also the fact that Wikipedia is ACCEPTED, that is, due to recent changes to its editorial policy it is now considered a quotable published source, no less so than most other publications. I know this because I work for a university. Like all sources, it is also subject to questioning and criticism - ACCEPTED or not. That is how studies of history worked, last I checked - and how all studies of anything work. You don't go with what's ACCEPTED, you take the evidence available and theorize as new interpretations become available. Time and debate will test their strength, not some vague ACCEPTABILITY.

So, anyway, is this actually a discussion or did you just want to throw some labels and indignation around to sound morally superior to some guy you heard about in California who you assume to be left-wing and who makes you angry for some reason?

Isn't it kind of interesting that you're so concerned with citation and historiography, yet run off with rants that show blatant disregard - or perhaps I should say ignorance - of both?

I have no disregard for historiography, I do not know where you come up with such a conclusion. I am sick of the revisionist crap on there bashing America and everything. I use proper historiography of cited sources. I am not fully aware of their changes in editorial policy. I do not know anything about it, though I am aware that many still do not accept it in universities. I do not show any disregard for historiography, although Wikipedia seems to with its "sensational claims" I am aware that history is rewritten based on the evidence, but there is also the traditional view of history of the traditional historians that don't change unless they have to.

I do not believe that America commited aggression against Japan during the Pacific War, although both sides were racist. I do not know where you come up with me disregarding historiography. I regard PROPER historiography, based on actual evidence and not emotional claims as proper to the teaching of history and I believe furthermore, that if history is written correctly and preserve it for all time, we are properly utilizing it, but history is not a tool for political propaganda and shouldn't be used as such.

I do not disregard historiography, although Wikipedia does because to do so is foolish and using historiography to force through a message of someone's agenda is to me wrong and calling anyone else that adheres to the accepted view of history of America as a victim of Japanese aggression during the war, and America not commiting aggression against Japan, as wrong, is to me flies in the face of the evidence. You can rewrite history, as long as you do it CORRECTLY!

OKAY! I do not like history being used as a tool of propaganda. You're up in Canadian universities, they tend to be more liberal than American universities in Wikipedia, so your view is of course different. I do not see where you come up with me disregarding historiography because I want to use my brain to come with claims based on what I see and feel based on the evidence that's there, not make up stories about primitive peoples coming into contact extraterrestrials.

I regard historiography as correct based on the books I write as correct because it was properly written by historians.

I see these left-wing revisionists and they sicken me and I do not like their views. There are varying interpretations of history and sensational claims that one makes based on how they feel about history, which Wikipedia does not bother to define.

I do not like the whole article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is still crap in my opinion.

I am tired of people who say that I disregard historiography because I do not agree with someone's agenda or because they want to paint me as simple-minded and stupid and not inclned to reason, as stupid because he watches TV documentaries and do not do things his way and because he is too stupid because he doesn't have training when in fact, history is about interpreting the facts and making a judgement, based on the evidence.

You're of the revisionist types over the traditional types. There a revisionist school that I am aware of.

I write things based on the logical gathering of evidence and sources, and I do sometimes based sensational claims, but this is based on interpretation of what I see based on a thought that I have, that is another way of looking at it, that isn't false history or whatever.

We agree to disagree. Let's put it like that.