Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 1

1006:

trying to present their POV on the issue through examples and essays that are essentially original research and not reflective of standard academic views. Historical revisionism is a legitimate term that has legitimate academic usage and our job is to summarize what the mainstream views are, not to write our own interpretations or emphesis particular things we might think are important. We seperated it out in to two articles because the anti and pro Nazi cadre (on both sides of the debate) have essentially claimed the term for themselves and they can spray paint the walls with their messages somewhere else under a NPOV tag, and leave the adults to deal with its real legitimate meaning here. Of course this action of creating 2 seperate articles is open for discussion, but until your recent edits it has worked very well, this article has not had a NPOV tag for a long time.

1287:, that you are only focusing on modern historians which is, as you say, your "point". What are your sources, Philip? I have some familiarity with the Philosophy of History, and what you have writen is not standard. I would re-write the entire article from scratch, and still might in the future, but it is a huge project because there are so many legitimate mainstream great thinkers on this subject, none of which you have mentioned. I would normally not care, some text is better than nothing and theres no reason to chastise contributors, except I believe you have larger motives at work here, which is essentially taking up sides in a debate, which is the whole reason we moved that stuff over to a seperate article where it could live with a POV tag. 607:

articles in the opening paragraphs, so there is nothing hidden, everything is transparent. I think your making what is really a organizational issue into a complicated POV issue, which it is not. Like I said, if you or some one wants to combine them, it would be easy enough, just make sure it maintains seperate and clear sections within the article, and the opening paragraph with the two seperate definitions. We will edit if there is any problem. I do think, however, you are inviting a long protracted problem with the fringe people editing the article to their own ends and NPOV views, which was the problem originally. Breaking it off in to a seperate article solves a lot of problems and effort.

482:. Taking for example, Holocaust denial, while most authority maintains this work is bogus, i.e. revisionist history, a tiny minority maintains it is the legitimate product of historical revisionist studies. The crunch comes with attribution of that opinion which involves the identity and proper characterization of that tiny minority. It is difficult to phrase it much different from this: "The neonazi website, www.killthejews.com (not a real website as of November 2, 2004) maintains Holocaust denial is the product of careful historical research." The same problem exist with respect to supporters of Stalin in the articles 371:.. This is simply incorrect. It _can_ mean that. It means exactly what it says, a reviseing of history. You are implying that all historical revisions are political in nature, done for a certain reason. That is true in some cases, but not all. As new information comes to light, history is revised. One only has to read the article on feudalism for example to see how professional historians apply historical revisionism to a topic. It is not politically motivated to support some particular effect. Indeed, the definition you provide from Oxford has two definitions, the second contradicting what you are saying. 729:

what was once "work outside of mainstream" is now mainstream because society has changed. To pretend that there is some absolute truth in history and that academic historians work in a vacume without being effected by the political and cultural landscape is false. We can quibble about the section on Irving if you like but I am going to restore my contribution. As I spent more time thinking about it and writing my contribution, I am likely to be more emotionally attached to it than you are to deleting it.

741:

tag that was previously here. The only way to do that was to move political discussions to a seperate article. We have had numerous discussions in the talk pages, (please read the talk pages histories on both articles) and it has arrived at this point for a reason. You can not just decide to change things one day on your own, and not discuss it here first when other people have allready put a lot of time and energy in to creating the structure that is here.

918:

has of yet been able to write about historical revisionism (political) in a NPOV way. Your recent contributions are clearly NPOV and not in the spirit of Knowledge (XXG), what you wrote is an essay and original research. It clearly belongs in the other article. Why wont you put it there? I can tell you why, because the other article has a NPOV tag allready on it. Mind you, this one, as you have currently edited it, deserves a NPOV tag as well.

31: 1423:. I do not wish to go through this paragraph clause by clause. Please give me a clause or a sentence which troubles you the most and I will try to find an adequate match, because it is rehash of many things I have read and would be covered in any first year study of historiographical paradigms. Indeed a Google search on turns up thousands and 138 of which one of the first I opened covers this topic in some detail 458:

on the internet indicated about a 10% use for this definition, and (5) of those using this benign definition, most appeared to be connected with a small class of people. The pejorative meaning had historical precedent and was widely used by a broad class of the population. I could not find a meaningful way to combine both meanings into one article. Perhaps someone can.

1055:, in the sense of "computer wizard", in the 70's, long before that term became appropriated by juvenile delinquents and the press to mean "computer vandal". Along with the rest of the original hackers, I was very distressed at the corruption of what was once (to us) an enlightened title. However, done is done, and if you go read Knowledge (XXG)'s 541:, a quote from the chapter "Conquest's fascist sources" is advanced: 'To justify the use of émigré books recording rumors, Conquest claimed "truth can thus only percolate in the form of hearsay" and that "basically the best, though not infallible, source is rumor." This book is available online on the website of the 400:

This article "historical revisionism" has a specific meaning in the historical profession and the article is laid out as such. If you care to try and merge these completely seperate concepts (the historical profession usage and the politicized usage) in to one article and term that everyone agress with, you can try.

1522:

definition. Since that material is also included word for word in the [[Historical revisionism (political) article, I think it should simply be left out of this article and simply try and fix the paragraph in the other article so as to better explain the relevence of the articles and material quoted from them. --

566:, and you will see that certain fringe groups (perhaps "fringe individuals" in this case) envision a world wherein dinosauroids play a pivotal role (I think at least some accuse George Bush of being a reptiloid, for example). Clearly these guys are not mainstream, but even in their bizarre case (and many others, 1399:

passes and these influences change so do most historians views on the explanation of historical events. Old paradigms may no longer be considered by most historians to explain how and why certain events in the past occurred, the accepted model is revised to fit in with the current agreed-upon version of events.

1145:'s own web site shows that a common modern usage of the term "historical revisionism" is used to describe Irving's writings, I think that a mention of this alternative modern usage of the phrase should be included on this page because without it the article does not describe all current usage of the phrase. 1330:

I noticed that you are already familiar with the English Civil War because you reverted some vandalism to the page on the 20th Jan 2005, which was before I mentioned it here. So I presume you are familiar with those sources and schools mentioned in the ECW article who have contributed different views

1218:

At least editing the text is more constructive than just deleting it! I think you are confused. The point is not if such things as nationalism influenced events in Ancient Greece. It is that such things as ideology, nationalism, language and culture influence the interpretation of the events today. A

1005:

I gather, from this, you are saying that because this page does _not_ mention Nazis and David Irving (you used the word "bland"), it implicitly favours David Irving. This is a logical fallacy, and it shows you have an agenda (ie. POV). This article being mis-used (abused) by both sides of the debate,

966:

but please be aware that people who favour David Irving's interpretation of history and edit Knowledge (XXG) will favour a bland page. If you look at the pages "Bombing of Dresden", "Total War", "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" and many more similar pages you will see that the same persons or (person

1432:

This is where the problem is. I tried to edit what you wrote to reflect this is just one of many views, and you reverted my edits (with no explanation). So, the next strategy is to attribute the ideas you are expressing to a particular author. Now your saying the ideas dont belong to anyone. That is

1165:

The whole section under "Interesting Times" is POV. It is a partially articulated side of a long-standing argument about what history is, the Philosophy of History, or Historiography, and is not really specific to Historical revisionism. In fact it tries to explain Historical revisionism within one,

1131:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of

807:

Most of what we will read is the work of historians; however, we will also engage to some extent with anthropology, literature, political science, feminist theory, and geography. A portion of that will be excerpts from the hottest recently published works. However, our task is to explore a variety

740:

There is a seperate article for the discussion of political historical revisionism. Your text has been moved to that article. This is not the article for the discussion of political historical revisionism. Myself and other editors spent months cleaning this article up so that we could remove the POV

707:

There is a historical revisionism article that deals with politics. This article deals with historical revisionism within the academic field, in which mainstream academic historians revise mainstream academic historical viewpoints based on new evidence, such as new research findings that are broadly

1505:

Because it appears to me the narrative is essentially a rebutal of the Holocaust people, you dont need to mention it to see where it leads. There are a lot of ways to approach this problem, your approach is a very particular one. It emphesises certain words and ideas and leaves others out entirely.

1032:

This distressing confusion is a direct result of people who distort history to make it serve their political or cultural beliefs (and/or psychological quirks). This includes most notably the HD's (such the so-called "Institute for Historical Review", and David Irving, who explicitly calls himself a

917:

here when there is a seperate article allready set up for that very purpose? Please answer that question. A number of editors in the past agreed to seperate political issues, to a seperate article, in order that the NPOV tag could be removed from at least part of the material, seeing as how no one

879:

you say I an "not being very co-operative or helpful in keeping this article neutral" yet I am the one who is adding material and trying to accommodate your criticisms by addressing them as you post them to this talk page which is how Knowledge (XXG) articles improve. Editing what has been added is

728:

I am not happy with you removing my text on the British Empire and Germany. I added it precisely because at the moment revision of history is taking place in those areas and it explains why ideas which were on the fringe are now main stream, not so much because new sources are availible but because

457:

is a minority definition and is used within a narrow group—(1) this article gives no sources for that definition, (2) I could find no historical use , (3) -ism means a belief in revision which seems redundant unless revisionism means more than simple revision, (4) a statistical sample of this term

836:

material, forceing his opinions to the forefront. Philip Baird Shearer is, in short, not being very co-operative or helpful in keeping this article neutral. As future editors come here and edit and change Philip Baird Shearer work (which, from experiences, they will), because they don't agree with

719:

Often times it is the historians who are in the minority such as women historians, or ethnic minority historians, or those who work outside of mainstream academia, or who work in smaller and less known universities, or young scholars, who have the most to gain, and the least to lose, by shaking up

101:

This article is not npov. there are holocaust-revisionist scholars out there who are certainly not nazis or anti-semitists. When you have an event of such a large scale as the holocaust, there are bound to be details that historians get wrong. to automatically dismiss any criticism of the standard

1373:

I have no idea what you email address is. I clicked on the "E-mail this user" box on the side of your home page, which if you have put am email address in your preferences emails you from inside Knowledge (XXG). If you are using the standard skin it appears in the tool box area on the left of the

606:

Sam, the split was never done intentionally the two articles existed independently and I noticed it one day and re-organized stuff as a matter of convience to avoid dealing with the fringe people, give them their own article to doodle in and let the real stuff happen here .. I also linked the two

399:

Sam, the NPOV stuff was moved to a seperate article "historical revisionism" because that article had allready existed and it was, as you say, shockingly NPOV and I had no desire to fight the special interests groups (jewish holocaust, Marxists, and others) who have co-opted and politicized term.

194:

Another genre of historical revisionism is associated with a famous chess player. This school of thought attempts to reconstruct history based on what it sees as evidence that things like the Roman Empire did not really occour two thousand years ago, but more like fifteen hundred years ago. They

1398:

Historians, like all people, are inexorably influenced by the zeitgeist (the spirit of the times). Developments in other academic areas, and cultural and political fashions, all help to shape the currently accepted model and outlines of history (the accepted historiographical paradigm). As time

1359:

My motives as I have stated both on this talk page (and in a private email which you choose to publish here), is to make sure that this article reflects as fully as possible both meanings of the phrase "historical revisionism", because as I said in the private email to you "As someone who has a

1368:

The fact that you would try to influence my opinion and have me enter into collusion with you via private email is entirely against the nature and spirit of the transparant nature of Knowledge (XXG). In fact my email address is not even published here, you searched it out from my blog pages or

1237:

Nationalism does effect the way historians in the modern era view history. Just look how military historians are sill fighting the Battle of Waterloo. For an example of how Nationalism can effect a revision of history, see how the influence of the European Union (and other factors) have been

694:

If you had replaced it with another image, perhaps, but we are building an encyclopedia, not destroying one. The story of George Washington and cutting down the apple tree is not any more esoteric example of historical revisionism than other example. If you have somthing better, lets see it.

1521:

The paragrpah as it was originally written made little sense overall to me so I rewrote it so that it more clearly states the second meaning of historical revisionism as it is sometimes used today. I also removed some material that needed to be better explained in how it relates to this 2nd

1108:. It also has a more specific usage which should be reflected in this article which is when it is used as a label for an article which deliberately misrepresents and manipulates historical evidence for political motives, an example of this usage is reported in another Post article 1433:

original research. You should be saying "Accoring to Thomas X, etc..." so that way I can say "A different view is held by Joe Y..." .. instead you present a philosophical outlook as fact with no attribution to anyone, and revert any edits contrary to your philosophical position.

1148:

Given Irving's failure in his the British libel case and the use of it to describe Irving work this meaning of the term is not an unbalanced POV. Searches of current mainstream English language newspapers with Google, (eg and returns articles using the term as a shorthand for

1452:, she says the exact opposite of what your saying when she says "I shall try to rescue some notion of historical truth or at least argue the case for spending our time trying to talk sense about the past, rather than nonsense about the impossibility of knowing the past". -- 433:

is an entirely different subject from the material which properly belongs in this article. It refers to "Revisionism" as in "Khrushchev, the revisionist capitalist-roader". I rather like the division into two: one which views good faith efforts to take a new look at history,

1325:" yet a few days ago you thought my mentioning historiographical paradigms was original research, which is surprising for someone familiar with Philosophy of History. If original research was that easy, we would all be professors of history at a prestigious universities :-) 595:. What criteria do we use to make this distinction? Is it fair to the subject we are discussing, and the people who hold these concepts dear? IMO we need to merge these two articles, with a special section for disputed claims, who disputes them, who supports them, and why. 1120:"Our primary concern is continued right-wing intimidation against the expressions of opposing points of view, whether attacks on dissent, intimidation of scientific researchers, or a demand for historical revisionism -- or historical cleansing -- regarding Ronald Reagan." 1466:

In my most recent contribution to the article, which was written hours before you published the paragraph above, I have not mentioned the Nazis, the Holocaust or David Irving. Instead I have based my new examples on the trends English Civil War and the two articles in

1295:

343:

Are the authors of this article having their little joke by trying to revise the definition of revisionism? Revisionism has never meant a system of updating history as new information becomes available. It has always meant revising history to support a particular

254:

Why is his name on this page? The page mentions him, but what it says about him is rather strange and not very detailed. Does anybody know more? Does he really belong on this page, or is his name here because of vandalism mistaken for something factual?

778:

As for Khun, you need to back it up with source quotes -- you can not do so, as you admit, because Khun never talks about historical revisionism. Your usage is Original Research which is against the rules of Knowledge (XXG). --03:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1279:. You are representing what Historical revionism is within a very narrow context. Your entry and motives here are highly suspect. You have allready made it clear, both in your email to me, and in comments here, that you have set out to refute the pro- 95:

Historical revisionism is a type of research that aims to change the conventional, most widely-accepted understanding of specific historical events. History is, after all, written by the winners. Historical revisionism thus is legitimate historical

762:

As you have read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" you will of course be aware that Khun does not include history as an example in his book which is strictly about paradigm shifts in the natural sciences. However as the Knowledge (XXG) page

466:

From what I remember, when we last discussed neutrality regarding fascism, you made it pretty clear you think there is a line, across which neutrality may not cross. Has your position changed, or shall I consider you irredeemably POV on this issue?

1369:

google. I don't make it hard to find in case there is a real need for someone to reach me, by the same token I don't publish it on Knowledge (XXG) inviteing people to email me. Some people post no personal information here, yourself included.

1062:

Yes, there definitely are two distinct concepts under the label "historical revisionism", and the older (the one you're attempting to focus this article on) is a extremely valuable one. History benefits greatly from re-examination with a fresh

360:"n. often derogatory. 1. a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist or pluralist principles. 2. the theory or practice of revising one’s attitude to something. — DERIVATIVES revisionist n. & adj." 1259:

Philip, what sources are you using for your most recent additions? I would like to research further and check your work. Note that if material can not be backed up with sources, it is original research and does not belong on Knowledge (XXG).

988:

because it will help you understand why some people will resist his name being mentioned on Historical revisionism and that it is part of a wider struggle and I hope that on consideration that you will see that the current page is not a NPOV

967:

with sockpupets) put up Templates like {NPOV} or {TitleNPOV} on a lot of articles at about the same time as the one put on the Historical_revisionism article and all of them were to do with what David Irving referes to as revisonist history.

102:

story at all for the sake of political correctness, is ridiculous. Sure, there are a lot of nutcases who want to pretend it never happened at all, but academics who want to quibble over the details should not be white washed as extremists.

561:

Hmm.. I think we disagree less than it originally appeared. I have no problem explaining exactly who does, and does not support a particular revision of history, thats what were here to do, after all, discuss the facts. Have a look at

1085:

So, with this more malign kind of "historical revisionism" being what many people think of when they hear the term, I think you have to be more expansive and forceful in discussing it here, and not shuffling it off to some other

1336:

As for Waterloo, I can not show you school books, but as an example if you use Google to search on and you will find nearly as many versions of the story here are web stites, many with a slant by nationality, here are three:

293:

It sounds like the sort of thing that some people might believe, but I've never heard of it being attribted to Kasparov. I'd like to see a source for it before it went back in - a search on Google hasn't turned anything up.

314:

Oh heck, I must've searched for the wrong things. It seems kind of familiar, that article - I might have even read it before... ah well, I'll put the paragraph back in the article (I might fiddle with it a bit first).

645:

Another way to do this is simply rename "revisionist history" to "Historical revisionism (political)" which it can arguably be said deserves a seperate article given the large scope and seperate nature of the topic.

808:

of scholarly approaches to colonialism, to investigate important periods of reconceptualization, and to recognize strands of debates that have laced through a variety of paradigms of imperialism and colonialism.

570:

comes to mind) a very tiny minority holds an extremely outlandish view. Holocaust or Soviet revisionism frankly pales in comparison (and really, how do we know how many agree w these interpretations of history,

1200:

4) "historiographical paradigm" .. this is a loaded term it is often used by people speaking about the holocaust. It is also not very friendly to the general reader. Changed to "model and outline of history".

941:

to accommodate your views until we can reach an agreement. So please explain to me in the last version which which you reverted what was it that you object to. Please don't just say all of it but be specific.

223:

They're using terms like 'less legitimate' and 'force for good' as if they were neutral and quantifiable states of being. I think this should be rewritten, and will do so shortly when I get the time to do so.

720:

the establishment. Those historians who work within the existing establishment, who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo.

1166:

of many, philosophical views of what history is. There are other views on what history is. As well, it only made sense when speaking about 19th and 20th century historians writing about their own times.

831:

and other contensious political matters here. Those issues were segregated to a seperate article so that this article could remain netural, yet, Philip Baird Shearer continues to "edit war" and add back

168:

So I don't know whether I should rewrite more of this from the historian's point of view, or just leave it as it is: discussing both perceptions, but leaning towards the popular, or non-academic, POV. --

708:

accepted by the majority of people. Also it is not a paradigm shift, that term has a specific meaning as defined by Thomas Khun, revising a viewpoint on the past is typically not a paradigm shift. --

1245:

Language has a huge effect because the primary sources most readily available to historians are in languages they understand. See Dark Ages for an example of what this means and the effect it has.

725:

I was not referring to texts from the middle ages but those from none latin/church sources which were defined as dark ages. Eg Welsh, Gaelic, Sagas etc. What you have put in place is a tautology.

1420:

article "It denotes the intellectual and cultural climate of an era", but I am sure that I can find many more meanings of the word which would more than adequately cover the first sentence

431:"n. A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position." 352:"n. A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position." 330:". If that's true, this section could be just renamed. (It's strange there is already no reference on Fomenko here, as he seems to be one of the most popular revisionists nowadays.) -- 553:

This formulation is unlikely to be satisfactory to Marxist-Leninist POV pushers as, to be frank, what it says, in more or less polite language is, "A discredited minority disagrees."

112:

I'd question some of the paragraph's terminology, but it seems like this article is talking about two different things: the popular view of revisionism -- a view largely shaped by

1238:

reinforcing regional identity in the UK. As the regions in the United Kingdom have become more assertive, so the interpretation of events in the English Civil War see the article

998:

As someone who has a passion for history, I hope you realise how insidius Irving is to the profession and I look forward to working with you on developing the page further.

390:. This distinction is based sheerly upon the opinions of the editors involved, and has no basis in objectivity nor neutrality. The articles must be NPOV'ed and merged. 1234:" This was one of the standard interpretations of the English Civil War from the 1940s up to the late 1970s and was widely taught in English schools and universities. 1089:

And yes, it may make this article a target for the "historical delusionists" (to coin a phrase), but that is par for the course on Knowledge (XXG), in so many areas.

288:, which believe that the events of what are known as the last 3,000 years occurred in either a much shorter or a much longer time frame, and attempts to explain how. 217:. Instead of being motivated by didactic pursuits, some types of revisionism are spawned by a desire to reshape history to help serve a particular political agenda. 1132:

the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

1207:

6) "This is the point-of-view of the most recent wave of revisionists." .. this needs to be supported and clarified. Which "recent wave of revisionists" ?

1360:

passion for history, I hope you realise how insidious Irving is to the profession and I look forward to working with you on developing the page further."

120:, note; and the academic view, where all writing of history is seen as revisionist, and nobody thinks revisionism wrong, since it's just a method -- no, 1408:

Who said this? There are various views on the nature of history and what history is. You present it like factual information, and its not that simple. --

952:

Philip, you sent me a private email which I just read. I would rather do all communications in public, Knowledge (XXG) works because it is transparent.

775:

This is not the appropriate article for your text. There is a seperate article called "Historical revisionism (political)". Your text is located there.

1109: 527:, they characterize his work with British Intelligence and the Foreign Office as "production of anti-Soviet propaganda". Citing a book sympathetic to 800:

which is just one suitable paper I found using Google I sugget that the seach is narrowed by including site:ac.uk or site:edu The latter threw up:

1204:

5) "which is agreed upon by contemporaries." .. didnt make sense what was trying to be said here. No work is fully agreed upon by contemporaries.

854:. If that were the case, I might be tempted to agree w him. But thats not whats happening here. His edits are well beyond anything allowed for by 1048:

Alas, they haven't given themselves anything - all they have done is tarnish (to some degree irreparably, IMO) the term "historical revisionism".

841:, and as future editors come here and add {NPOV} tags to this article, I will wait for Philip Baird Shearer to fix the problem he has created. -- 300:

Camembert, I found it on my first google: It is apparently something he does adhere to and he even wrote the introduction to a book about it.

71: 66: 1078:

historical revisionism (or whatever term you pick) to give themselves legitimacy. And who knows, probably a lot of them believe that they

787:

makes clear the ideas have been applied to many other areas of intellectual pursuit since his groundbreaking work." Here is an example

896: 851: 670: 1082:

historical revisionists, and feel that they are just as entitled to use of the term as those whom you and I would consider real HR's.

479: 1230:

Ideology has an influence on historical analysis and can lead to a revision of history. As is discussed in the Civil War article "

749:

Explain to me how historians work is not influenced by the political environment and culture in which they live, particularly the

1275:

Philip, the reason I am asking to see your sources is because I believe what you have writen is one side of the argument against

1017:

The problem with your point that "istorical revisionism is a legitimate term that has legitimate academic usage" is that for a

869: 1172:

0) Changed the title to reflect what is actually being discussed (which really doesnt belong in this article, it belongs in

722:

The words could have come from Thomas Khun. That is exactly what causes a paradigm to be created and then a shift to happen.

520: 234:

Done. Paragraph now points up contrast between didactic revisionism and political revisionism, using more neutral terms. --

1045:

proponents, etc. They have all appropriated the term "historical revisionism" in an attempt to give themselves legitimacy.

1416:

I wrote it otherwise it would be submitting "copyrighted work without permission." The first sentence is a rehash of the

491: 1248:

Culture is plays a large part in influencing the view of historians see the section of slavery for an example of this.

1530: 1389:

Second, I'm not talking about the factual information you posted. I'm talking about the first paragraph, specifically

1232:

The Marxist school of thought, which became popular in the 1940s, interpreted the Civil War as a bourgeois revolution.

323: 80: 47: 17: 141:

In the latter sense, revisionism is as old as history writing itself: compare the account of Augustus' reign in the

1331:

on the origins of the war. I hope that the Washington Post is an adequate source for the secondary meaning for you.

1239: 788: 767:

makes clear the ideas have been applied to many other areas of intellectual pursuit since his groundbreaking work.

453:. This term is used as such. Although, after some research, my conclusion was that the use of the term to describe 38: 827:

Over the past months I have done my best to keep this article netural. Philip Baird Shearer insists on discussing

1495: 1375: 1361: 1249: 1154: 943: 904: 815: 768: 756: 730: 981: 1105:

Although the term does encompass the general meaning as defined here and as used in a Washington Post article

1186:

2) removed "ideology" .. a modern concept and idea that doesnt transfer to historians further back in time.

937:

The last edit which you reverted was about things other than just politics. I have removed any reference to

545: 533: 146: 1177: 927:

I have restored Sam Spades edit, which was a compromise, and at least keeps the NPOV tag from appearing. --

1038: 588: 548: 435: 387: 1463:

But before I answer any more of your questions please answer mine first which I will repeat for clarity:

1350: 889:

of the project, and to the concept of group editing in general. Pages change, and this is not your page.

331: 459: 1106: 880:

one thing but just to revert it all is another. To quote from a well known authority on such matters:

284:" is used sometimes to refer to specific revisionist theories associated with the famous chess player 1340: 1029:. That meaning, of course, is the kind of thinking which produces people like the Holocaust deniers. 1468: 1297: 863: 592: 439: 412: 383: 789:

UNIVERSITY OF WALES, ABERYSTWYTH, DEGREE EXAMINATIONS 1998 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND WELSH HISTORY

567: 563: 524: 1443: 1421: 438:; and the other which covers bad faith efforts to present false history as in Holocaust denial, 213:

as it brings important new information to light and helps destroy old myths. However, there are

1345: 1059:

article, "crackers" (as we unsuccessfully attempted to label them) are now discussed there too.

308: 269: 259: 1224: 1220: 519:

strongly criticize Conquest's scholarship, in particular, for his reliance on such sources as

369:

Revisionism has never meant a system of updating history as new information becomes available.

227: 129: 1129:

page states that Justice Charles Gray, the trial judge of his failed libel case, concluded :"

962:

I had a look at you user page and I am sure that you are acting in good faith over the page

886: 554: 516: 508: 495: 487: 443: 256: 117: 1009:

I will look over your text later and show where is needs to cite sources and/or is POV. --

783:

I never claimed that Khun said such a thing I clamed "However as the Knowledge (XXG) page

584: 183:

I don't understand what the fourth paragraph is meant to mean. Can anyone shed any light?

1037:, pp. 145). However, it also includes many others too numerous to list here, such as the 1445:, if you want to attribute this notion to Hegel thats fine, Hegel holds little water in 301: 1507: 1453: 1450: 1424: 1409: 1381: 1288: 1261: 1211: 1183:

1) removed "nationalism" as an influence. There was no nationalism in ancient Greece.

1173: 1010: 928: 876: 859: 842: 784: 764: 742: 709: 696: 674: 647: 627: 622:

I understand your point completely, the problem is fringe people shouldn't have their "

608: 596: 468: 416: 401: 391: 372: 327: 316: 295: 285: 1472: 1446: 1301: 1093: 523:, émigrés, and the CIA. By what is viewed by supporters of Conquest as an attempt to 266: 125: 1193:

which is a modern concept and term and makes no sense when speaking about, say, the

1051:

Look, I have a lot of sympathy with your position, because I've been there. I was a

801: 1478: 1449:

history and can be easily rebuffed. According to your second link by Mary Fulbrook

1307: 1280: 1276: 1142: 1126: 1042: 985: 900: 858:, and while informative and interesting, are far to biased to be of much use here. 538: 113: 963: 151: 1194: 885:

Please stop insisting its your way or no way, thats an attitude contrary to the

483: 322:

I haven't checked Kasparov specifically, but I suspect he is just a follower of

281: 156: 132:'s history department, put it: "Revision is kinda the point of writing history." 103: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1485:

I believe what you have writen is one side of the argument against David Irving

1314:

I believe what you have writen is one side of the argument against David Irving

1523: 895:

Although I disagree with the rather anaemic paragraph which directs people to

305: 265:

It was added by an anonymous user with two edits. It probably has no value. -

195:

attempt to use mathematics and cite missing information to prove this theory.

142: 1417: 1190: 751: 235: 169: 243:

So who is really following an ideological agenda and who is less accurate?

755:

of an age and I will stop including my text on this subject on this page.

244: 1090: 977: 1074:

muddied, by people who persist in wrapping themselves in the mantle of

850:

I would understand if Philip simply felt we were being POV in creating

1351:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/miscellaneous/c_cambronne.html

415:" is all lies slant, and removed the dispute header. I hope thats ok. 1056: 1052: 542: 528: 1341:

http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/waterloo-army-positions.htm

587:

if you will, to split the concept of historical reevaluation into

1517:

Rewrite of the paragraph on historical revisonisms second meaning

382:

What they are trying to do is create a false distinction between

1481:

until we have discussed it further. PBS 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1310:

until we have discussed it further. PBS 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

855: 1151:

deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence

1139:

deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence

202:

If this isn't blatantly slanted writing I don't know what is:

25: 1374:

screen. I can be reached by email using the the same method.

1346:

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/WATERLOO_GUARD_NAPOLEON.htm

1101:

A second common usage of the phrase "historical revisionism"

346:

The oldest reference I could find, from the 1969 edition of

1321:

I am confused by your request for sources. You state that "

1115:

People for the American Way saw it in a different light:...

159:-- that summarizes the average historian's view perfectly.) 411:

I see your point. I edited the article to minimize the "

1475:. This is in line with what I wrote on this talk page " 1304:. This is in line with what I wrote on this talk page " 215:

other types of revisionism which are much less positive

1323:

I have some familiarity with the Philosophy of History

673:. Thanks for your help, and amiable nature Stbalbach. 280:

Finally the term "historical revisionism", or simply "

275:

I've taken it out. Here is the paragraph in question:

209:

Revisionism in the style mentioned above is usually a

913:

Philip. why do you keep putting material related to

1483:". So why have you written in the paragraph above " 1312:". So why have you written in the paragraph above " 899:. I will for the moment removed the paragraph on 354:Also, this from the tenth edition (2003) of the 509:The Great Terror#Criticism by Marxist-Leninists 1529:THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. TO CONTRIBUTE MORE GO TO 1477:will for the moment removed the paragraph on 1306:will for the moment removed the paragraph on 79:THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. TO CONTRIBUTE MORE GO TO 8: 91:Is the following the article author's POV? 87:Is the following the article author's POV? 794:Why do historiographical paradigms shift? 1380:My mistake didnt know that was possible. 478:For Knowledge (XXG) purposes, I support 1041:conspiracy theorists, the more extreme 903:until we have discussed it further. -- 245:http://vho.org/GB/c/FPB/NizkorLies.html 1068:no matter what you call this variation 1027:that meaning is the only one they know 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1442:According to the link you just posted 980:had to say on Irving in a section on 480:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view 7: 1021:of people it has (unfortunately) a 955:For the record here is your email: 626:", it creates... alot of doodle ;) 575:?). All of that said, IMO it is an 455:"reexamination of accepted history" 124:method -- of writing history. As a 897:Historical revisionism (political) 891:Sam Spade 19:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) 852:Historical revisionism (political) 671:Historical revisionism (political) 24: 1219:very good example of this is the 1137:As the trial judge found Irving " 1033:"revisionist" - see David Evans, 982:Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 5 425:This definition: 1969 edition of 1070:, the distinction will again be 427:The American Heritage Dictionary 348:The American Heritage Dictionary 29: 507:For example from the article, 1: 1141:", and as a Google search on 1169:So I have made some changes 1066:Alas, I have a feeling that 492:Collectivisation in the USSR 155:. (See the first item under 1531:Talk:Historical revisionism 207:Less legitimate revisionism 81:Talk:Historical revisionism 18:Talk:Historical revisionism 1547: 1240:Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1153:" for political motives. 872:) 16:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 837:his points of view on the 802:Colonial Africa Colloquium 1412:02:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1291:23:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1264:02:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1157:14:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1013:00:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) 946:23:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 907:19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 845:16:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 771:02:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 759:02:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 712:16:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) 699:15:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 557:13:30, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) 446:23:48, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC) 356:Concise Oxford Dictionary 334:02:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) 230:00:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC) 1526:13:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) 1510:06:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1498:04:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1456:06:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1364:02:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1252:19:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1096:16:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1025:meaning - and moreover, 984:and then the article on 931:22:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 818:10:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) 745:22:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) 733:17:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) 624:own article to doodle in 498:13:30, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) 462:00:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) 238:06:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC) 172:09:19, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) 143:Res Gestae Divi Augustae 1285:Nazis and the Holocaust 829:Nazis and The Holocaust 677:20:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) 650:14:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) 630:12:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) 611:06:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) 599:15:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) 546:Progressive Labor Party 471:00:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) 419:16:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) 404:15:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) 394:13:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) 375:15:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) 309:17:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 270:17:00, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 260:12:51, 9 May 2004 (UTC) 1161:Problems with new text 964:Historical revisionism 589:Historical revisionism 534:Another view of Stalin 436:historical revisionism 388:Historical revisionism 1178:philosophy or history 703:political revisionism 267:George Washington III 149:' account of same in 128:of mine, formerly of 42:of past discussions. 1496:Philip Baird Shearer 1376:Philip Baird Shearer 1362:Philip Baird Shearer 1283:arguments involving 1250:Philip Baird Shearer 1155:Philip Baird Shearer 944:Philip Baird Shearer 905:Philip Baird Shearer 839:Holocaust and Hitler 816:Philip Baird Shearer 769:Philip Baird Shearer 757:Philip Baird Shearer 731:Philip Baird Shearer 190:Temporal Revisionism 179:Temporal revisionism 152:Book I of the Annals 86: 1469:the Washington Post 1298:the Washington Post 1214:18:12, 27 Jan 2005 887:M:Foundation issues 593:revisionist history 440:revisionist history 413:Revisionist history 384:Revisionist history 1271:Mysterious Sources 1035:Lying about Hitler 939:Nazi and Holocaust 834:Nazi and Holocaust 568:flat earth society 564:Reptilian humanoid 521:Nazi collaborators 1225:English Civil War 1221:changing analysis 1189:3) Should remove 976:Please read what 823:Striving for NPVO 517:Marxist-Leninists 186:Moved para here: 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1538: 915:political issues 488:The Great Terror 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1519: 1273: 1163: 1103: 825: 705: 692: 669:Good idea, see 585:false dichotomy 583:distinction, a 525:poison the well 490:(the book) and 451:(see strikeout) 449:I take it back 340: 252: 192: 181: 89: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1544: 1542: 1518: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1500: 1499: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1427: 1426: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1366: 1365: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1348: 1343: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1318: 1317: 1272: 1269: 1267: 1258: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1246: 1243: 1235: 1174:historiography 1162: 1159: 1123: 1122: 1117: 1102: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1087: 1083: 1064: 1060: 1049: 1046: 1030: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 993: 992: 991: 990: 971: 970: 969: 968: 957: 949: 935: 934: 933: 932: 922: 921: 920: 919: 893: 892: 874: 873: 847: 824: 821: 820: 819: 812: 811: 810: 798: 797: 796: 785:paradigm shift 773: 765:paradigm shift 747: 746: 737: 736: 735: 734: 726: 723: 704: 701: 691: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 615: 614: 613: 612: 601: 600: 514: 513: 512: 511: 502: 501: 500: 499: 473: 472: 429:has only one: 423: 422: 421: 420: 406: 405: 396: 395: 379: 378: 377: 376: 350:has only one: 339: 338:A little joke? 336: 328:New Chronology 320: 319: 302:check this out 291: 290: 286:Garry Kasparov 273: 272: 251: 250:Garry Kasparov 248: 242: 240: 239: 211:force for good 198: 191: 188: 180: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 163: 162: 161: 160: 136: 135: 134: 133: 107: 106: 98: 97: 88: 85: 75: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1543: 1534: 1532: 1527: 1525: 1516: 1509: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1486: 1482: 1480: 1474: 1473:Ronald Reagan 1470: 1465: 1464: 1462: 1461: 1455: 1451: 1448: 1447:postmodernist 1444: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1425: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1411: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1363: 1358: 1357: 1352: 1349: 1347: 1344: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1309: 1303: 1302:Ronald Reagan 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1270: 1268: 1265: 1263: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1236: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1213: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1175: 1170: 1167: 1160: 1158: 1156: 1152: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1133: 1128: 1121: 1118: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1107: 1100: 1095: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1039:Pearl Harbour 1036: 1031: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1012: 1007: 997: 996: 995: 994: 987: 983: 979: 975: 974: 973: 972: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 956: 953: 950: 947: 945: 940: 930: 926: 925: 924: 923: 916: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 906: 902: 898: 890: 888: 883: 882: 881: 878: 871: 868: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 846: 844: 840: 835: 830: 822: 817: 813: 809: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 792: 791: 790: 786: 782: 781: 780: 776: 772: 770: 766: 760: 758: 754: 753: 744: 739: 738: 732: 727: 724: 721: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 711: 702: 700: 698: 689: 676: 672: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 649: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 629: 625: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 610: 605: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 574: 569: 565: 560: 559: 558: 556: 551: 549: 547: 544: 540: 536: 535: 530: 526: 522: 518: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 497: 493: 489: 486:(the event), 485: 481: 477: 476: 475: 474: 470: 465: 464: 463: 461: 456: 452: 447: 445: 441: 437: 432: 428: 418: 414: 410: 409: 408: 407: 403: 398: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 380: 374: 370: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 337: 335: 333: 332:212.27.240.40 329: 325: 318: 313: 312: 311: 310: 307: 303: 298: 297: 289: 287: 283: 278: 277: 276: 271: 268: 264: 263: 262: 261: 258: 249: 247: 246: 237: 233: 232: 231: 229: 225: 221: 220: 216: 212: 208: 203: 200: 196: 189: 187: 184: 178: 171: 167: 166: 165: 164: 158: 154: 153: 148: 144: 140: 139: 138: 137: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 110: 109: 108: 105: 100: 99: 94: 93: 92: 84: 82: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1528: 1520: 1484: 1479:David Irving 1476: 1407: 1397: 1388: 1367: 1322: 1313: 1308:David Irving 1305: 1284: 1281:David Irving 1277:David Irving 1274: 1266: 1257: 1231: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1199: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1150: 1147: 1143:David Irving 1138: 1136: 1130: 1127:David Irving 1124: 1119: 1114: 1104: 1079: 1075: 1072:deliberately 1071: 1067: 1043:Afrocentrism 1034: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1008: 1004: 986:David Irving 954: 951: 948: 938: 936: 914: 901:David Irving 894: 884: 875: 866: 838: 833: 828: 826: 806: 793: 777: 774: 761: 750: 748: 718: 706: 693: 623: 580: 576: 572: 552: 539:Ludo Martens 532: 515: 460:12.74.168.93 454: 450: 448: 430: 426: 424: 368: 359: 355: 351: 347: 342: 341: 321: 299: 292: 279: 274: 253: 241: 228:Peregrine981 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 206: 204: 201: 197: 193: 185: 182: 150: 121: 114:David Irving 90: 78: 60: 43: 37: 1195:Middle Ages 555:Fred Bauder 496:Fred Bauder 484:Great Purge 444:Fred Bauder 282:revisionism 257:ChessPlayer 157:revisionism 36:This is an 1080:really are 1508:Stbalbach 1454:Stbalbach 1418:zeitgeist 1410:Stbalbach 1382:Stbalbach 1289:Stbalbach 1262:Stbalbach 1212:Stbalbach 1191:zeitgeist 1023:different 1011:Stbalbach 929:Stbalbach 877:Stbalbach 860:Sam Spade 843:Stbalbach 752:zeitgeist 743:Stbalbach 710:Stbalbach 697:Stbalbach 648:Stbalbach 609:Stbalbach 573:worldwide 402:Stbalbach 373:Stbalbach 317:Camembert 296:Camembert 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 1086:article. 870:contribs 96:research 1223:of the 344:effect. 324:Fomenko 147:Tacitus 118:his ilk 39:archive 1471:about 1300:about 1094:(talk) 1057:hacker 1053:hacker 989:piece. 577:unfair 543:Maoist 529:Stalin 130:McGill 126:friend 104:Vroman 1524:Cab88 690:Image 306:Danny 16:< 1125:The 1091:Noel 1076:real 1063:eye. 978:Noel 864:talk 856:NPOV 591:and 386:and 362:-~~ 326:'s " 236:Mirv 199:--- 170:Mirv 145:and 116:and 1494:-- 1210:-- 1197:. 1176:or 1019:lot 814:-- 675:Sam 628:Sam 597:Sam 581:POV 537:by 469:Sam 417:Sam 392:Sam 122:the 1533:. 1506:-- 1487:"? 1316:"? 1260:-- 1227:. 1180:. 1134:" 579:, 550:. 531:, 494:. 442:. 358:: 315:-- 304:. 294:-- 83:. 1242:. 1149:" 867:· 862:( 219:" 205:" 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index