Talk:History is written by the victors

The Headline seems self-evident, at least to this one member of the human species. If I have strayed in social understanding, perhaps some better informed human should point out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.58.91 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 3 2004, consensus was not reached, page was redirected to Philosophy of history. Discussion:

Personal essay; POV pervades. Needs either deletion or major work, Dukeofomnium 14:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's not a rant, but it's provincial ("American education" "political correctness"), and it's highly unlikely to be searched for by a user. Therefore, it's kind of null. Geogre 15:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The subject itself should perhaps be mentioned in pseudohistory, historical myths and philosophy of history. I can't imagine anyone would search this elementary business out named as such. Delete. Fire Star 20:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to be such a bother, but in my defense, I didn't just invent this topic out of thin air. I followed a pre-existing link from "terrorism", but when I clicked the underlined words, Wikipedia told me that no one had written the article yet, but if I wanted to write something, please, by all means, go right ahead. Now you tell me you don't want an article on this subject. OK. Whatever. I figure you guys are always quoting me as an expert, so maybe I should eliminate the middle man and just write the articles myself, but as I said, whatever. As for provincial... since I can't speak for New Zealanders and Guyanans, I didn't want to assume that they also dismiss multiculturalism as "politically correct", that's why I specified it as an American thing.Matt28 21:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I meant no insult by saying that it's provincial, only that too often articles fail to note their native bias (UK as much as USA, India as much as Australia). It's true, of course, that the phrase is trotted out as a truism and a stalking horse (many of the "losers" were preliterate and therefore couldn't write the history), but once we get into that we get into POV. I agree with Fire Star: the discussion should be a section in pseudohistory or philosophy of history, and the link you followed ought to redirect there. Geogre 00:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mm. It's not... useless, not per se... um. But it's badly named, situated, etc. Some good information, which should be saved (I'd do it myself, but am not up to the task), but as for the rest of the entry - delete. DS 22:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Merge with history and redirect. anthony (see warning)

End discussion