In The Killing of History, Windschuttle defended the practices and methods of traditional empirical history against postmodernism, and praised historians such as Henry Reynolds, but he now argues that some of those he praised for their empirically-grounded work fail to adhere to the principle.

He argues that Aboriginal rights, including land rights and the need for reparations for past abuses of Aboriginal people, have been adopted as a left-wing ' cause ' and that those he perceives as left-wing historians distort the historical record to support that cause For Windschuttle, the task of the historian is to provide readers with an empirical history as close to the objective truth as possible, based on an analysis of documentary, or preferably eye-witness, evidence.

His work on sources constitutes, according one critic, his most damaging contribution to the subject, though Stuart Macintyre argues that Windschuttle ' misreads those whom he castigates '.

Vicki Grieves argues that Windschuttle regards Aboriginal men who traded their women's services as pimps, although Windschuttle does not use the term.

Windschuttle argues that the principles of the Enlightenment, fused with the 19th century evangelical revival within the Church of England and Britain's rule of law had a profound effect on colonial policy and behaviour, which was humane and just, that together made the claimed genocide culturally impossible.

Smithers argues that Windschuttle interpreted settler violence as self-defence.

Windschuttle argues that encroaching pastoralism did not cause starvation through the loss of native hunting grounds as some historians have proposed, as their numbers were being drastically reduced by introduced disease, and large parts of Tasmania were not then, or now, occupied by white settlers.

Windschuttle argues that introduced disease was the primary cause of the destruction of the full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal people, not merely by directly causing deaths but also through widespread infertility resulting from introduced venereal disease.

Boyce argues that their observations, including those of the captain Nicolas Baudin, do not support Windschuttle ’ s claims.

In reply to Boyce, Windschuttle argues that Boyce could not have read the whole book, or even properly checked the index, which cited ' this very evidence ', i. e. the journals of early French and British explorers.

Windschuttle argues that ' were Boyce more familiar with the ethnographic literature ', he would know the most telling evidence about the treatment of women comes not from explorers but the Aborigines themselves ; from the recorded words of male Aborigines, such as Woorrady, Montpeliatter, Mannalargenna and Nappelarteyer, and those of female Aborigines such as Tencotemainner, Truganini and Walyer.

For Windschuttle, Breen and others can say things that sicken no one, because they contextualise it within a model of British invasion and Aboriginal resistance, whereas he is taken to task for being ' pitiless ' for making what he argues is the same point, ' within a historical model of aboriginal accommodation to a comparatively nonviolent British settlement.

In reply to his critics, Windschuttle argues that Henry Reynolds " willfully misinterprets " what he wrote, since his argument about Aboriginal concepts of land is based not on their words but on their deeds.

Windschuttle argues that no word list records an Aboriginal term corresponding to the English word " land " in the sense that Europeans use it, " as a two-dimensional space marked out with definite boundaries, which can be owned by individuals or groups, which can be inherited, which is preserved for the exclusive use of its owner, and which carries sanctions against trespassers ", but states that " they certainly did identify themselves with and regularly hunted and foraged on particular territories, known as their ' country ', which I openly acknowledge.

Smithers, an Australian comparativist working on native histories, argues that Windschuttle's political agenda shows a ‘ discomfort with the way the " orthodox school " by inflating Aboriginal deaths, impugns Australian identity and its virtuous Anglo-Saxon origins .’ Windschuttle's book plays to ' the white wing populism of white Australians, who feel their racially privileged position is under attack .’ By reaction, Smithers argues, Windschuttle highlights ' the nation ’ s virtues ’, privileging the opinions of settlers and colonial officials, ' while rejecting Aboriginal oral histories.

Smithers argues that Windschuttle ignores documentary evidence that contradicts his own ideology, and fails to perceive that the island reserves created for indigenous Tasmanians were ' racialized spaces ' for a people regarded as a form of ' social pollution '.

He argues that the book is ‘ a therapeutic history for white ( Anglo-Saxon ) Australians that distorts and distracts ’ and that in denying the reliability of historical evidence of racialized groups, Windschuttle employs a tactic used by historians to discredit historical accounts that do not fit with their presentist morality .’

Windschuttle shows, she argues, a predilection for old colonial explanations, and Darwinist values, as though nothing had happened in between.

" However in the Trevorrow case, Windschuttle argues that the decision shows " that the actions of the Aborigines Protection Board in placing Bruce in foster care without his parents ’ agreement was actually illegal at the time " and not the result of a policy of removal but rather the illegal actions of welfare officials who believed, rightly or wrongly, that Bruce Trevorrow was neglected and that his health and life would be in danger if they returned him to his mother.

Windschuttle argues that the primary source of conflict between the British and the Aborigines was raids by Aborigines, often involving violent attacks on settlers, to acquire goods ( such as blankets, metal implements and ' exotic ' foods ) from the British.

Windschuttle argues that, in order to advance the ‘ deliberate genocide ’ argument, Reynolds has misused source documentation, including that from British colonist sources, by quoting out of context.

Windschuttle argues that, in the years prior to Stanner ’ s 1968 Boyer lecture, Australian historians had not been silent on the Aborigines although, in most cases, the historians ’ " discussions were not to Stanner ’ s taste " and the Aborigines " might not have been treated in the way Reynolds and his colleagues would have liked ".

Keith Windschuttle contends that what occurred at Waterloo Creek was a legitimate police action in which at most three to four Aborigines were killed in the second encounter.

After education at Canterbury Boys ' High School ( where he was a contemporary of former Liberal Australian prime minister John Howard ), Windschuttle was a journalist on newspapers and magazines in Sydney.

Between 1977 and 1981, Windschuttle was lecturer in Australian history and in journalism at the New South Wales Institute of Technology, now University of Technology, Sydney before returning to UNSW in 1983 as lecturer / senior lecturer in social policy.

Windschuttle challenges the idea that mass killings were commonplace, arguing that the colonial settlers of Australia did not commit widespread massacres against Indigenous Australians ; he drastically reduces the figures for the Tasmanian Aboriginal death toll, and writes that Aborigines referred to by both Reynolds and Ryan as resistance figures, included ‘ black bushrangers ’ and others engaged in acts normally regarded as ' criminality '; arguing that the evidence clearly shows that attacks by Aborigines on settlers were almost invariably directed at acquiring goods, such as flour, sugar, tea and tobacco, and that claims by orthodox historians that this was a form of guerrilla warfare against British settlement aren't supported by credible evidence.

Windschuttle agrees with earlier historical analysis, such as that of Geoffrey Blainey, that introduced disease was the primary cause of the demise of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

' Péron would have disagreed, Boyce believes, with Windschuttle ’ s claim that ‘( t ) raditional Aboriginal society placed no constraints on the women ’ s sexual behaviour with men, ’ for he was repeatedly rebuffed when he tried to make physical contact with Aboriginal women.

With respect to Boyce's claims that Windschuttle was ' unaware ' of or ' ignored ' various sources, Windschuttle responded that Boyce's claims, based on what was, and was not, in ' Fabrication's ' bibliography, misinterpret the purpose of a bibliography.

It was positively reviewed by Geoffrey Blainey, who called it ‘ one of the most important and devastating ( books ) written on Australian history in recent decades ’, although Blainey notes that not every side-argument in the book convinced him and that his ' view is that the original Tasmanians were not as backward, mentally and culturally, as Windschuttle sometimes depicts them '.

Regarding native treatment of women, who in his account were viciously brutalized, Windschuttle appeals to the reader's moral outrage at the way a 14 year old native girl was traded.

In the wake of the 2011 Norway attacks, Windschuttle did not deny that perpetrator Anders Behring Breivik had read and praised statements he had made at a symposium in Zealand in 2006, but stressed that he was " still at a complete loss to find any connection between them and the disgusting and cowardly actions of Breivik.

In January 2009, Windschuttle was hoaxed into publishing an article in Quadrant.

In 2002 historian and journalist, Keith Windschuttle, in his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803 – 1847, disputed whether the colonial settlers of Australia committed widespread genocide against Indigenous Australians, especially focussing on the Black War in Tasmania, and denied the claims by historians such as Reynolds and Professor Lyndall Ryan that there was a campaign of guerrilla warfare against British settlement.

The lecture was subsequently published in the political and literary journal, Quadrant, which at the time was edited by Robert Manne and is now edited by Keith Windschuttle, two of the leading " history warriors ", albeit on opposing sides of the debate.

The estimates of the death toll were disputed by Keith Windschuttle and by Leo Casey, who said the figures were " fabricated out of whole cloth ".

Windschuttle claimed that Daum " had done no research into the matter " and that " the reports of the Sudanese operations of the several Western aid agencies, including Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, and Norwegian People ’ s Aid, who have been operating in this region for decades, will not find any evidence of an unusual increase in the death toll at the time ".

In " Contra Windschuttle ", an article published in the conservative publication Quadrant, S. G. Foster examined some of the evidence that Windschuttle presented on one issue, Stanner's notion of the " Great Australian Silence ".

Edward Trimnell, author of Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One ( 2005 ) argues that the international version of English is only adequate for communicating basic ideas.

Yitzakh Magen argues that the version of Chronicles is perhaps closer to the historical truth, and that the Assyrian settlement was unsuccessful, a notable population remained in Samaria, part of which, following the conquest of Judah, fled south and settled there as refugees.

In the climactic scene of the 1960 movie version, Brady argues, " Natural law was born in the mind of the Creator.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America argues the practice at the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon.

Rubin further argues that this is inherently illogical without the Satanic Verses in the recitation, given that in the accepted version of verses Q. 53: 19-23, the pagans ' goddesses are attacked.

Miller argues that Alexander's suggestion in 1969 that the reporter became confused, and introduced elements from other plays is unlikely, and instead suggests an adapter at work ( whom he refers to as the ' compiler '), writing in the romantic comedy tradition ; " the most economic explanation of indebtedness is that whoever compiled A Shrew borrowed the lines from Shakespeare's The Shrew, or a version of it, and adapted them.

Oliver argues that the version of the play in the 1623 First Folio was most likely taken not from a prompt book, or a transcript, but from the author's own foul papers ( probably with some annotations by the book keeper ), which he argues bear signs of edits, primarily related to Hortensio.

This is significant because some critics argue that in an original version of the play, now lost, Hortensio was not a suitor to Bianca, but simply an old friend of Petruchio ( this is a modification of the Ur-Shrew theory, which instead of arguing that a play by someone other than Shakespeare served as a source, argues that an earlier draft by Shakespeare once existed ).

James argues that in her extended description of this dream, Cleopatra “ reconstructs the heroic masculinity of an Antony whose identity has been fragmented and scattered by Roman opinion .” This politically charged dream vision is just one example of the way that Shakespeare ’ s version of the historical tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra destabilizes and potentially critiques the imperialist Roman ideology inherited from Virgil ’ s epic and embodied in the mythic Roman ancestor Aeneas.

Haukur details that " the oldest manuscript, U, offers a version where Jǫrð is the wife of Dellingr and the mother of Dagr while the other manuscripts, R, W and T, cast Nótt in the role of Dellingr's wife and Dagr's mother ", and argues that " the version in U came about accidentally when the writer of U or its antecedent shortened a text similar to that in RWT.

Haukur details that " the oldest manuscript, U, offers a version where Jǫrð is the wife of Dellingr and the mother of Dagr while the other manuscripts, R, W and T, cast Nótt in the role of Dellingr's wife and Dagr's mother ", and argues that " the version in U came about accidentally when the writer of U or its antecedent shortened a text similar to that in RWT.

Haukur details that " the oldest manuscript, U, offers a version where Jǫrð is the wife of Dellingr and the mother of Dagr while the other manuscripts, R, W and T, cast Nótt in the role of Dellingr's wife and Dagr's mother ", and argues that " the version in U came about accidentally when the writer of U or its antecedent shortened a text similar to that in RWT.

Haukur details that " the oldest manuscript, U, offers a version where Jǫrð is the wife of Dellingr and the mother of Dagr while the other manuscripts, R, W and T, cast Nótt in the role of Dellingr's wife and Dagr's mother ", and argues that " the version in U came about accidentally when the writer of U or its antecedent shortened a text similar to that in RWT.

M S Golwalkar argues that it was a delibrate Imperialist strategy to teach Indians a wrong version of history.

On comparing the Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus with the fuller Coptic version, Nicholas Perrin argues that the differences can be attributed to the reliance of both on a common Syriac source.

" Roger Warren, however, argues that the scene provides strong evidence that The Contention is a reported text ; " it is not hard to conjecture how the Quarto's version came about.

Doherty argues for a version of the Christ myth theory, the view that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure.

G. R. Hibbard argues that the name was originally Polonius, but was changed because Q1 derives from a version of the play to be performed in Oxford and Cambridge, and the original name was too close to that of Robert Polenius, founder of Oxford university.

John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth-century advocate of the utilitarian version of consequentialism, argues that it is a mistake to confuse the standards for right action with a consideration of our motives to perform a right action: " He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble ; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations.

On the other hand, Thomson argues that an essential difference between the original trolley problem and this version with the fat man, is that in the first case, you merely deflect the harm, whereas in the second case, you have to do something to the fat man to save the five.