4. Are there any forbidden subjects? (soc.history.what-if)
Description
This article is from the soc.history.what-if FAQ, by Anthony Mayer anthonyemayer@yahoo.co.uk with numerous contributions by others.
4. Are there any forbidden subjects? (soc.history.what-if)
Yes. The newsgroup charter (see question 1) rules some subjects out of
bounds explicitly. These are really just special cases of the general
restriction of the newsgroup to its proper topic, specified only because
they had previously caused problems in alt.history.what-if or other
history newsgroups. In all cases, there is a more appropriate Usenet group
for these subjects: this is a newsgroup for the discussion of alternative
history.
4.a. Ban on Politics
Since real-life contemporary politics is neither historical nor
alternative, arguments about it are off-topic here. This does not mean
that all political discussion is forbidden -- your beliefs on politics
naturally affect what you see as reasonable in an AH. It can also be
argued that all historical discussion will involve political discussion
at some level. But once a discussion becomes an argument about which
beliefs about politics are correct, it usually skirts, and often falls
under, the Ban. In effect, the BoP is a call for posters to attempt to
refrain from making extreme value judgements in the discussion, and to
try and retain some measure of objectivity.
Since blatantly off-topic political flamewars have frequently
disfigured the newsgroup in the past, a large set of posters will serve
notice if you violate the BoP. Please try not to be offended if this
happens to you: take it to e-mail (or, theoretically, to talk.politics)
if you wish to continue the discussion.
4.b. Non-alternative-history Fiction
The word "history" appears in the newsgroup name. Thus, questions like
"What if Luke Skywalker had not destroyed the Death Star?" which
involve entirely fictional (non-alternative history) universes are not
appropriate. There is certainly a better newsgroup for such questions
(e.g. rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc, in the case of Luke and the Death
Star).
4.c. Future History
The newsgroup is for discussing history that has already happened.
Questions such as "What if George W. Bush were assassinated tomorrow?"
have been asked and argued, and will probably continue to arise. But,
again, there are more appropriate newsgroups for such discussion, most
probably alt.history.future (or, in some cases, a specialist group such
as talk.politics.assassination), although propagation of a.h.f seems to
be limited. You may need to specifically request it be carried at your
site; contact your newsmaster or newsadmin.
4.d. Secret History
"Secret history" involves the revelation that something that we think
we know about the past is untrue. It is not alternative history: it
leaves history unchanged, and the present is certainly still the
present. (Why what we know is untrue may vary, but in most secret
history stories there's some sort of a conspiracy at work to hide the
truth from the masses.) A related side-issue is whether a purportedly
non-fiction book (e.g., Baigent et al.'s HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, or one
of the Von Daniken books) can also be secret history. In any case, for
purposes of the soc.history.what-if newsgroup, secret history is
off-topic -- whether admittedly invented or supposedly non-fictional.
There are many newsgroups which might be the appropriate venue, such as
rec.arts.books or rec.arts.sf.written, another soc.history group,
alt.conspiracy, or some specialized alt. group.
4.e. Historical "Revisionism"
Genuine revisionist history is a respectable intellectual undertaking,
but arguments *exclusively* concerned with real history belong on
soc.history.moderated or some other group in the soc.history hierarchy.
Denial of the facts of the Nazi Holocaust or the Turkish massacres of
Armenians (or any other examples of 20th- century genocide) is neither
intellectually respectable nor on-topic for this group. The newsgroup
created specifically to argue the point is alt.revisionism; such
arguments are out of place here.
Holocaust deniers have turned up on the newsgroup before, and no doubt
will again. Please do not get drawn into an argument which will just
raise tempers and waste time and bandwidth: if you just can't bear not
to respond, post *once* and then stop. (Do not be fooled by their habit
of posting under many fake usernames, either.) Take the argument to
private e-mail if you must continue it further, rather than continuing
to post to the newsgroup. Experience shows that ostracism is a more
effective tactic than argument for getting these people to leave. And,
as far as anyone can tell, they have never converted any of our
readers, so it is not necessary to be concerned about leaving them
unanswered when deciding who should go in your killfile.
Continue to:
My Books
