I remember when a historian who wanted to correct common misceptions in articles would have his updates reverted. The common views are not always correct. Such as Canada didn't have troops in Vietnam. Canada had MASH medical units, and theres even a canadian webpage listing medals award and names who served in Vietnam.
He finally kept his updates on his personal page, but then wikipedia made it you couldnt find his page.
Then I started finding that was the common idea on Wikipedia, deleting views from wikipedia that didnt meet the popular editors. Pages got deleted with rules that didnt make sense, not popular enough, not reported by main stream news, no articles found, etc.
I'm old enough to remember news and events that counter the popular views, and those events are not even in historical news articles. The re-writing of history has been going on in wikipedia launched, its more common than you think.
My favorite wikpedia fake excuse, they dont have enough space to include non-popular historical events, its history, authors who trended all the talk shows even oprah and made nytimes best seller, etc, are removed from history.
Theres entire mainstream history in 80's that don't match reality, and was deleted. The narrative of groups in charge, are the ones who get reported.
This is undoubtedly so, but the point of wikipedia is to record the common view. The criterion for inclusion is acceptance in the mainstream sources, not truth.
Pages are technically technical debt. I understand why unpopular topics are not maintained. I've not seen anything that would suggest something systematic (especially cross language).
Can you elaborate about the active effort you suspect exists? (Rewriting implies authorship)
Are you sure you're not talking about Red Cross teams from Canada (not exactly Canadian troops).
> and theres even a canadian webpage listing medals award and names who served in Vietnam.
Aren't you talking about Canadian recipients of US medals (because they joined the US military)?
There were also those involved with the ICCS during the US withdrawal, various defense companies who sent contractors to work on equipment in Vietnam for their US customers, etc.
I don't think that this is actually true-- other than the ICRC, the small number of Canadian advisors at the beginning of the war, the small number of Canadian peacekeepers at the end, the extensive number of Canadian volunteers for US military service, and the employees of Canadian defense companies that travelled to Vietnam to support US equipment. There were also some humanitarian civilian missions.
There's tons of newspapers, etc, online from this period. It's hard to believe that no primary nor secondary source would have survived of what you're describing.
He finally kept his updates on his personal page, but then wikipedia made it you couldnt find his page.
Then I started finding that was the common idea on Wikipedia, deleting views from wikipedia that didnt meet the popular editors. Pages got deleted with rules that didnt make sense, not popular enough, not reported by main stream news, no articles found, etc.
I'm old enough to remember news and events that counter the popular views, and those events are not even in historical news articles. The re-writing of history has been going on in wikipedia launched, its more common than you think.
My favorite wikpedia fake excuse, they dont have enough space to include non-popular historical events, its history, authors who trended all the talk shows even oprah and made nytimes best seller, etc, are removed from history.
Theres entire mainstream history in 80's that don't match reality, and was deleted. The narrative of groups in charge, are the ones who get reported.
Those who control the history books they say.