Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 2

2043:"After reviewing the features of post-1989 revisionist interpretations of Romania's role in the Second World War and the Holocaust, the study underlines how this revisionist trend of Romanian nationalist historians has relied on the accounts, largely unfounded, of Dr. Moses Carmilly-Weinberger, the wartime rabbi of the Neolog Jewish community in Cluj, and of Dr. Raoul Sorban, a professor of art history at the University of Bucharest. Randolph Braham succeeds very well in underscoring that the rehabilitation campaign of Marshal Antonescu and his regime, besides belittling or ignoring the sufferings inflicted on the Jews, also has a strong anti-Hungarian dimension, a familiar theme of mainstream Romanian nationalism." which is from an academic website is not making such a clear distinction that the two suggested page names imply. 549:

state crime). I think that if this explains our controversy (as yet we are waiting for others POV), we should clearly put a disambig sign saying, for this entry: this article concerns the US sense of the word "historical revisionism" (and, therefore, the same sign on the other entry: this article concerns the European sense of the word "historical revisionism"). You should be aware that not doing this can be considered (at least in Europe) as a way of trying to justify those wacko theories that you rightly reprove. This terrible ambiguity should be fixed! However, there will still be this point to adress: in Marx, Benjamin or Foucault POV, history is always political and revision of history always has political aims...

275:) does not mean that this should be called "historical revisionism". This is plain historical work. Revisionism, if words make sense, refers to the rewriting of history following a policy agenda, and denial of Holocaust is the most famous example of it. A Knowledge (XXG) entry on "historical revisionism" should include everything put in "historical revisionism (political)", and all comments about history being in itself a revisionist science, far from being deleted, should be replaced in the "history" article (or maybe "philosophy of history"), as they belong to the day-to-day works of history. Not doing this is simply letting this entry becoming a forum for revisionists. As show the talk-archives, naming 431:? You may be right, but please understand that from an European point of view, historical revisionism means denial of historical facts. I am not "trying" to de-legitimize this term: from my personal POV, you are the one trying to legitimate this term! If you are honest, you will then recognize that we have a POV debate here. If you precisely indicate in the introduction that what you are refering to in this entry is a "legitimate sense" used in the USA, but that in others parts of the world such as Europe historical revisionism always refer to 888:

U.S. and Soviet Union spied on each other. What was in question was the depth and degree of the spying, and the number of spies. The "Red Scare", by contrast, was a domestic political situation in which McCarthy made sweeping claims that Soviet espionage was vast and all-intrusive, and used this to assail his political enemies from the Senate Floor. Therefore, by itself, the fact that the Soviets spied on the U.S. is not revisionist history since there was never any broad consensus otherwise.

268:. This evolution on the writing of history is dependent on the discovery of new facts, but also in a change of ideas and understanding: the two are very difficult to dissociate, as any change in written history can be suspected of political motives. Henceforth, it is foolish to distinguish between a "good" neutral so-called "historical revisionism" and a "bad" "historical revisionism (political)". Historical revisionism is always political in nature, as is history in itself. 2982: 31: 85: 1954:"A term used for a revised attitude to some previously accepted political situation, doctrine, or point of view; concr., the name of the policy adopted by a right-wing Zionist group, active during the formative period of the State of Israel; mostly U.S., a movement to revise the accepted versions of American history, esp. those relating to foreign affairs since the war of 1939-45." (first used in 1921) This entry my be of interest: 2946:

reexamination or reinterpretation of existing evidence. Legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" or a "convergence of evidence" that suggest that an event - like the black plague, American slavery, or the Holocaust - did in fact occur (Lipstadt 1993:21; Shermer & Grobman 200:34). Denial, on the other hand, rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence..." Ronald J. Berger.

967:

here. However if it were to be re-written with the emphasis of how today's nationalism causes different interpretations of the same historical events in a region of Asia (Just as nationalism effects the views on the Battle of Waterloo in Europe) -- and providing it does not go in for Korea is right/wrong "so yar-boo sucks to the other lot", then I think it could be a useful addition to the examples in the article. --

1204:. Although this article notes revisionism is a struggle historically, the status quo side of the New Historians debate, to a large degree, has tried to dismiss the new data outright and is currently arguing the interpretation of the data, rather than the facts thereof. The debate has degenerated to the point where the perjorative usage of the word ‘revisionist’ could be considered a relative a compliment. 981:

80s. The change came with an ideological shift of defining China as a "multi-ethnic unitary state", so this is a good example of shifting ideologies. Also, when Mark Byington says that "Korea is misguided", he's referring to the wide-spread suspicion among Koreans that China's doing this to justify a possible annexation of North Korea. He's not referring to the conventional view that Koguryo is a Korean state.

792:, but these are not really revisionistic. Revisionism, strictly speaking, is where you take an established idea and discount it based on new evidence. Otherwise it is just the normal process of better understanding the many nuances and complexity of history. So I guess the question is, is there a school of thought saying the US did not drop the bomb because it wanted to end the war early? -- 1957:"1965 New Statesman 1 Oct. 486/2 One linguistic difference between American and British historians lies in the frequency with which they use the word ‘revisionism’. It is common currency in Transatlantic seminars and journals, but hardly ever heard in this country. Ibid., ‘Revisionism’ goes on all the time because of disagreement about the moral and political significance of what happened. " 369:) proves that they are people who object to this supposed "legitimate" sense of historical revisionism (which does not mean that history is not a matter of debate: but this is not the primary sense of historical revisionism, whether among historians or non-historians (or we are not reading the same historians). The questions of historiography and historic debate should be adressed in the 1098:

data with which to argue new hypotheses. The new area of 'ancient DNA', recovering partial results, allows scientists to argue for example whether or not humans are partly descended from Neanderthals. The reader must watch out for multi-disciplinary academic papers that end with cautious or generalised results." History no longer derives from dots of ink on a page.

771:"Often historians who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, or ethnic minority historians, or those who work outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, who have the most to gain and the least to lose, by shaking up the establishment." -- what about them all? -- 1137:. I do not know much on these two accusations other then that I know they have been criticized by the media for allegedly changing factual events for their benefits. My intentions are not trying to give a POV, or create crazy conspiracy theories, but I was interested on readying more about these accusations. 2410:

dictionary. The OED lists a number of distinct meanings for the use of the word revisionism and revisionist. Secondly a quick search of the phrase "Historical revisionism" and "historical revisionist" among Google books shows that the term exists so we are not creating a neologism. As to the use as a

1246:

Irish revisionism is not a good example in the context of this article. It would be more suited to negationism. The piece is also wrong and misleading anyway on two counts. Firstly, Kevin Whelan actually argues that revisionism was politically motivated and secondly, what lead to an increase in local

1208:

has largely been between Jewish historians. Debating the importance or even acknowledging the New Historian’s data outside the Jewish community has often lead to charges of antisemitism. This legitimate historical revisionist debate is contemporaneous with, and in part causal to, the development of

848:

It's not the mainstream view. The examples here are showing how revisionism has overturned mainstream established beliefs and are now the new mainstream. I can't comment if what your saying is right or wrong, all I know is that any general history book doesn't say Truman dropped it because of Stalin.

615:

Ok I rewrote the intro and made it simple. Two meanings. Two articles. Not complicated. The lead section should just be an introduction/summary, with the body of the article containing the real content and explanation. Hopefully that will avoid further confusion in the future. I deleted a section you

548:

is legally adressed in the US and Europe (see also the Chomsky controversy) shows that we don't generally share the same ideas - this is no wonder to me, as Europe was a lot more implicated in this genocide than the US, and is thus much more sensitive (rightly so, from my POV) to denial of this major

298:

Historical revisionism is a legitimate scholarly term that has been co-opted by certain parties to give fringe wacko theories undeserved legitimacy. That is why it has been separated to a different article. It's about isolating it so we can have a decent and relevant article about the legitimate term

2021:

when the source that is used does not make it clear which meaning is meant. It is no use saying that in such an eventuality then leave it at the new disambiguation page because we have editors who make it their life's work to remove links from disambiguation pages to point to the underlying articles

1843:

would be an excellent rename for this article, but I am not sure where that leaves the other article. It seems obvious that a discussion of Holocaust Denial should have no place in any article with the word "academic" appended to it, but I didn't believe it belonged in this article with its current

1461:

I have contributed to both pages and I do not see them as expressing the views of two different sets of Knowledge (XXG) editors. They express a differentiation in the use of the phrase not a difference of opinion about a phrase by Knowledge (XXG) editors. For example take a relevantly recent section

1061:

It's an ongoing debate here in Ireland, but with no political angle. Deliberately, I quoted Kevin Whelan's work on 1798 as he outlined the various revisions long before Irish independence; before the politics became important. Each revision mentioned / discovered new 'facts' and chose to ignore most

887:

I deleted this because it is a straw-man argument and not an example of revisionist history. There is no cited evidence for the sweeping assumption that communist espionage was "generally considered paranoia"; on the contrary, going back to World War II, any common-sense observer understood that the

802:

Historical denial is when you take an accepted piece of propaganda and expose it. You really piss people off - all they can do is holler and scream. Any fact of history is rarely totally assailable ( little pieces, etc )- propaganda, however, is loads of fun to dump on ( a soft target and especially

787:

I'm not sure this section is a good example of revisionism. The reason is, the "old" view is still widely held and valid, the US certainly did drop the bomb to end the war quickly - it may have also had other motivations, which are now coming to light, which adds to a more nuanced picture of events.

543:

Thanks for the sources. I will check them up a bit later. About your proposition to rename political historical revisionism, as you said, you are aware that it would be problematic. If I understand your POV, than it is more a matter of US versus European definition (which wouldn't be the first time;

313:

Performing a Merge I just checked and realized that its been a year since the Merge was proposed. Since I don't see any strong support in favor of keeping this page, I'm going to do the merge. Actually, I'm going to dump the text into historical revisionism, save it, then open it up again and delete

175:

I don't have the sources (or the time to find said sources at the moment), but there is a particularly popular piece of historical misinformation regarding the United States Army intentionally giving smallpox invested blankets to Native American tribes (I believe the Mandan were named specifically).

164:

This article could be improved significantly if more examples were added, and if the current examples were siginificantly expanded. IMO, as is I feel the examples section of this article is weak, and a reader new to the subject might come off with an impression of "huh?", "so what?" or "that's it?"

2945:

and Alex Grobman (2000). These scholars make a distinction between historical revisionism and denial. Revisionism, in their view, entails a refinement of existing knowledge about an historical event, not a denial of the event itself, that comes through the examination of new empirical evidence or a

1451:

This is no more a content fork than any two articles that share a name and are disambiguated. Point of view forking is to do with presenting two different arguments about the same topic. We could move "Historical revisionism" to some other name and have a disambiguation page here, but I think it is

1307:

because it was argued by some (and I came around to agreeing with them after initally being against two articles), because the waters are otherwise so muddied that it makes it easy for people who are not familiar with the other term to get confused over which is legitimate and which is illegitimate

191:

There is a stream of so-called 'black history' -- I am not referring to the legitimate history of the African Americans -- that tries to imply that Plato, for example, was African, and that Africa was far more culturally advanced than admitted by mainstream history. I don't have references to that,

1348:

I definitely would support non-merging. But you cannot have two articles in which one expresses the views of one set of WP editors which the other oppose. You cannot set up a platform in which one merely legitimates the views which are discredited in the other. And that's what we have right now: a

1207:

The importance of this debate has massive implications both within the broader historic context and better knowledge of Israeli History, as well as a better understanding of the Palestinian point of view, their struggle for human rights and self-determination. Similar heated debate within the US

734:

During the later phases of the Cold War, and especially just after the fall of Communism in Russia, there were a number of histories which were called "revisionist." For a time, this was the main usage heard, and clashed with the usage of the term by holocaust deniers. Some people, not knowing the

1293:

This has been discussed before. They are two different meanings as described in the introduction, possibly with common different meaning on different sides of the pond. In the UK it has a common pejorative meaning -- Few if any historians in the UK would want to be labelled as "revisonist" in the

1097:

That's fine, thanks. KW analysed revisionism itself - that is why he should be mentioned. I was also guilty of adding in the new scientific analyses as in: " Carbon dating, the examination of ice cores and tree rings and measuring oxygen isotopes in bones in the last few decades have provided new

1079:

which makes it sound like negationism. I read it more closely and I think I understand what your saying, that there is a school of revisionism trying to overturn the nationalistic scholarship of the past with social, micro, economic, womens, etc.. which would be a good example of revisionism. BTW

980:

Why Koguryo is regarded as "Korean" is not nnecessarily because of Korean nationalism. Look at all the other tertiary sources, such as Britannica, and non-Korean history/archaeology books on Korea. The conventional view is that Koguryo was a "Korean" state, and Chinese had the same view until the

966:

mentioned above interesting, and I think it could be the basis for an example of nationalism causing two differing interpretations of history. The tone of the section Stbalbach removed is confrontational and has an non neutral point of view, so I do not think that that version should be included

837:

To answer your question, No, the US did not drop the bomb to end the war, quickly or otherwise. According to the historians I referenced, conventional warfare was recommended by the Pentagon as the best means to end the war. Truman dropped the bomb for one reason--to intimidate Stalin. And that's

585:

Tried to make the first section more readable, while perserving the distinction between European and US definitions. First I did a "minor cleanup", which seeks to make the first paragraph more readable, without removing the information about different uses of the term. Then I saved that and did a

416:

No matter what you personally believe, the term "historical revisionism" is used, in its legitimate sense as defined here, by some historians and others, particularly in the USA. Are they right? Wrong? That would be original research to comment on. Our job is to report what other people do. Your

1470:

article. To mix those two sections in the same article would be confusing. If negationism was common in English then we could put it under that and all your arguments would evaporate, but it is not a common expression while Historical revisionism meaning negationism is so we should not do that.

633:

OK, I changed the first paragraph a little just to try to make it read more clearly. Tell me what you think. I think the "historical revisionism" section contains a lot of opinions ("all history is inherently revisionist") and is generally more analylitical than factual. I'd ask you to consider

1162:

Holocaust and all the subjects related to this event may be revised just as all other events. I don't deny the fact that many of the Holocaust revisionists are politically motivated, but it has nothing to do with verification of the events of the past. Both ateheist and a religious person can

476:

Yes I'm aware that in Europe the term has negative connotations, that it does not have in the USA. I think the distinction between the two is, one is history revised by historians for legitimate historical reasons, and the other is history revised by non-historians for political or propaganda

279:

has been interpretated here, by some, to be an act of POV. However, he has been condemned for something that justice calls "historical revisionism", he is therefore a good example of it. Nobody seems to consider that quoting the stupid and dangerous lies of "The Holocaust of Industry" (in the

373:

entry or in a entry about philosophy of history (there is such a category in Wiki, so why not use it). This article (as written for the time being) is obviously a matter of philosophical and historian debate, not something which can be written as a NPOV, since not all think there really is a

667:

leaves me bored and confused: it seems to crop up mostly in newspaper opinion pieces, where the snotty right/left winger is taking on an arrogant left/right winger, over some historical event that plays host to their mutual contempt. Where did the term derive from, where was it first used?

435:, I will stop bugging you as I don't consider myself qualified enough to tell you what it means in the US. But I certainly considers myself qualified enough to tell you what it means in Europe! Does that sound right to you? However, you will still need to put a citation from some US 1505:

should redirect to the disambiguation page and disambiguation hatnotes should be added to the articles so readers can find what they're looking for. This naming scheme will keep the two topics properly separate and avoid the problems of similar material creeping into both articles.

477:

reasons. Such as your example in France, with French politicians trying to revise history for political reasons. But the term is so commonly used in the USA, in its legitimate sense, im not sure what kind of specific source there is, but will try. I would actually prefer to rename

830:

relevant to the subject. Most reviewers specifically described Gar Alperovitz's work as "revisionist." In fact, BookList labeled him "the dean of revisionist scholars." The specifics I illustrated are not "nuances," they are assertions that directly contradict previous historical

1964:

Given the term use in the US "mostly U.S., a movement to revise the accepted versions of American history, esp. those relating to foreign affairs since the war of 1939-45." and the New Statesman's comment I think that there is no need to move the article unless one is proposing

417:

attempt here to de-legitimize the term, by putting it on equal level with wacko holocaust deniers and others who are involved in political propaganda, is really against how Knowledge (XXG) operates. We dont tell the world how things should be, we report on how things are. --

1747:. It's is clear to me - from my recollection of historical reading. Sometime latter, somehow, the adjective that preceeds got attached to designate the other meaning. Whether or not there are two - one legit, the other not, is to be established by appropriate 283:

Now, if after all this someone still really wants to defend historical revisionism, why not just write something to defend such extremist POV by a more neutral sentence such as: "Advocates of historical revisionism point out that their work is condemned as

572:

If a "legitimate" historian should accidentally trip across some documents that would brand him "illegitimate", what should he do? Who should he call for advice? Is he still an historian if he suppresses the new facts he has found - accidentally found?

2060:

Also how does one deal with comments like this "The target of much revisionism was popular rather than academic history, as exemplified by John Mitchel’s infamous comment that "The almighty indeed sent the potato blight, but the Engl ish created the

1062:

previous analyses. Of course one can split hairs over whether something is negationist or not. I have supplied a reference and if you disagree after you have read it, then delete it. Deleting a point before you read a source is just vandalism.

299:

and meaning, as recognized by mainstream historians. In fact "historical revisionism (political)" could be renamed to somthing entirely different, because its really not history at all, its propaganda. How about we rename that article

449:

I'm not sure what ismeant by "in Europe" here. In the UK, the terms "historical revsionist" or "revisionist history of X" are commonly used to refer to a new or non-mainstream model being adopted to explain some historical phenomenon.

849:

People use the term revisionist for a lot of reasons, one is to give their views legitimacy (rightly or wrongly). And he may even be right. It's just too controversial or not well established to be a good example in this article. --

586:"major cleanup" which deleted big chunks of the article. These were peices which were poorly written, vague, not NPOV, or didn't seem to offer much to a new reader. I left the lists there, although I think they should be rewritten. 643:

Actually, I did make one content change in the first paragraph. I removed "by professional historians". I don't think historical revisionism does not have to be practiced by professionals in order to be legitimate.

280:(politics) entry) is a Nazi POV !!! It should be written here that revisionism is condemned by law in a lot of country. Moreover, as someone already said, Japanese historic revisionism should certainly be stated! 2441:

please stop changing the introduction to these articles until after the move has or has not been agreed. Changing the content like this makes it hard for someone new to this page to see what the debate is about.

559:

Keep in mind this is the English wikipedia, not the German or French wikipedia. Im not sure what your objection is, other than a cultural linguistic mis-understanding. Also, whats your objection to renaming the

386:, to name a few) think that any attempt to write history, or to rewrite history, has got political aims. As such, there is no "neutral" historical revisionism: revisionism is political by nature. See also 2381:

Accordingly I propose that we adopt the usages of these two National libraries of the United Kingdom and of the United States (we can consider other countries (if any) if, or when that comes up, later.

1839:(which still has the merger template in place) to simply renaming this single article. Is it Ludvikus' intention to permanently withdraw that proposal? To resubmit it after a name change? I think 597:

Lampos, the article before was not perfect, but it was not bad. If you had replaced it with somthing better, I would not mind but your revision was really confusing and somewhat inaccurate. --

1196:

to the See Also section. This is an on-going, active and hotly debated historical revisionism issue predominantly within Israel, but with immense wider implications. It is based largely on

2856:

Please do a Google book search on "Historical revisionism" and take you pick. But two returned on the first page of the search which clearly have nothing to do with Irving and his ilk:

1308:

use of the term, which is precisely why people like Irving like to use the term. So given that there are two usages of the term, we should have two articles on the term for clarity. --

314:

it. There's a lot of great examples of historical revisionism here, and maybe they deserve their own page. But this is not an encyplopedia entry. Lampros 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

1609: 1349:

duplication designed to say nice things about the subject which are not tolerated on the other? Do no-one understand what I'm saying, or what the purpose is of Wiki policy against

2911: 500:

Here are a couple articles that show that historical revisionism is a legitimate undertaking, with the term being co-opted by certain history "deniers" for political purposes:

2891: 2415: 2412: 1047:

I'm kind of concerned about using the Irish revisionism as an example of revisionism. It looks more like an conscious attempt to change history for a political purposes (ie.

860:

That is primarily because published "books" are usually released long after something is know. The historian who gets too far ahead of the crowd gets his little hand slapped.

2660: 334:

If the discussion of the merge is in the other article, then the "merge" template should also be in the other article, shouldn't it? :) Kaliz 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

2860: 2097:

and from the introduction of that article, allow the reader to be aware that there are two meanings. This also side steps the problems that otherwise occur with the

2468:, I haven't changed anything - I was out dancing all night - and just got up from my sleep. Haven't even had breakfast yet. Also, why are you discussing the great 999:

article, I don't see why it should be included here, its a debate spilling out into other articles, this article should not become a new front in a POV war. --

2418:

in a book written more than a decade ago. I suggest that we leave the creation of lots of new pages and for the moment keep focused on the move or no issue. --

1011:

given the fact that Cydevil is missing my point, I agree with Stbalbach that we are better off not including a contriversial example like this on this page. --

1663:. Therefore "Revisionism" should remain a disambiguation page. I also oppose the alternative move for the reasons I have given in the discussion section. -- 1236: 1080:

sorry if you saw it as vandalism, I posted this note and wait about a week or so and didn't hear back so removal of the text was the next logical step. --

919:. These articles are not a platform to list everything someone happens to think is revisionism. We are listing uncontroversial, sourced and fully accepted 711:

Regarding changing the names of the articles: these are the terms widely used, so we use them here. We reflect usage, rather than invent better terms. --KM

2098: 863: 806: 1659:

Revisionism is used with different adjectives to mean distinctly different things. For example Historical revisionism in both forms is different from

916: 365:

I put back the POV check because we don't even agree if there should be a POV check or not. The debate on the merge of the two articles (merging with

2270: 1805:

I do agree with Ludvikus that the current set of names for these articles is confusing, however I have a different idea for the naming scheme. IMHO

2093:

because for those cases (and there are lots) where it is not clear which meaning is meant in the cited source, one can default to the main article

1915:, because links from "word" to "word (disambiguation)" tend to lead to alteration to the redirect either through good faith edits or vandalism. -- 995:

article (modern politics section and article lock-down for edit warring), this is controversial issue, until they get their house in order in the

695: 2914:

way. Particularly the paragraph that starts "The most notorious example of historical revisionism..." which is clearly a use of the word meaning

743:. But "revisionism" is from the "accepted notions," not in any given direction. This is just what seemed most important to me about the term. -- 1809:

is used in the negative sense rather than the academic sense in common usage. I think it would probably be better for this page to be moved to

1817:

to be aimed at the disambiguation page. Add disambiguation hatnotes to all the articles will aid readers in finding what they're looking for.

3022: 3010: 1978: 102: 71: 59: 833:- US leadership did NOT believe that the atomic option was inevitable, militarily necessary, or tactically superior to conventional warfare. 2018: 1836: 1494: 1467: 1271: 1148: 1122: 1118: 1048: 912: 818: 875: 726:

Frustrated with dealing with the intellectual elite? It must be catching. I wish their IQs were as high as we had been led to believe.

1304: 753: 669: 561: 527: 478: 432: 366: 249: 213: 1170: 717:

I'm not inventing terms - just suggesting the use of clear terms instead. Anyway, I spoke out of frustration. Nothing hangs on it.--

2153:, which we incorporate into our articles. We are not to (1) research the usage of language and use our findings here - we are not 2131:. I'm very new to this Knowledge (XXG) page. So please excuse any ommission of others. I outline the following issues I see here: 2709: 1135: 1548:- the first opposer to the proposal is the proposer. Discussion section left open to encourage further discussion of the issue. 1393:. A quick Google of site:uk shows that "Denialism" and "Denialist" are hardly used compared to "revisionism" and "revisionist". 2573: 2172:) accept for the moment the WP position that there is a distinction to be made with respect to at least one other country (the 521:"Revisionism is an activity in which all historians engage. In other words, it is a perfectly normal aspect of historiography." 1613: 2967: 2954: 2923: 2899: 2875: 2778: 2511: 2447: 2423: 2110: 1920: 1668: 1476: 1415: 1313: 1163:

discover a new planet. But their religios preferences havenothing todo with the information abou the celestial body.- Newoy

1077:

Since 1970 some commentators and historians have sought or promoted a revisionist approach, often deprecated as anti-national

568:? I mentioned it might be problematic, only because the holocaust deniers might object to it. --15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 2838: 2815: 2766: 2189: 2138: 1452:

reasonable to argue that this is the main topic and not bother, although this is of course an American centric position :-)

1294:

mass media because of the negative connotations the word has gained through its use to describe people like David Irving.

2786: 2630: 2597: 1948: 1912: 1232: 2090: 2065: 2014: 2010: 1840: 1810: 1686:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1539:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1498: 896:

There is a difference between 'keeping in contact with a crazed enemy' and 'plotting to annulated everything american'.

2998: 2293: 2223: 789: 47: 17: 2578:- that's obviously who "they" are and where their name comes from - and that's what we should write about (w/o OR). 2989: 2603:- that makes our job (as Wikipedians) much easier regarding WHO they are and WHAT their views are or what "theories 684:. It's difficult enough to tidy up the facts, without this pair of yobs barging in and smashing all the crockery.-- 252:. Of course history is a matter of debate, and the official history is more than often the history of the winners ( 38: 1966: 534:

since this seems to be the latest description being used for these types of things, and a more appropriate one. --

427:

If such really is the case, why don't you add in this entry that it is used in this so-called "legitimate sense"

2963: 2919: 2895: 2871: 2772: 2507: 2469: 2465: 2443: 2419: 2128: 2106: 1916: 1664: 1472: 1411: 1309: 1033: 1012: 968: 132: 2886:

And an even better one on the next Google page because it explains the terms partly from the point of view of a

111: 1849: 1647: 1331: 1152: 814: 803:

if the supporters are powerful and can only look stupid and whiny and you can see their blood pressure zoom ).

747: 735:

difference between a description and a label, were confused. Knowing that "Cold War Revisionists" were on the

513:"Historical revisionism is a perfectly legitimate, respectable and necessary approach to historical analysis." 2320: 2314: 1228: 835:- US leadership did NOT believe that a long, drawn-out invasion of mainland Japan was the likely alternative. 2250: 2244: 936: 871: 2689:

View LC holdings for this title in the: LC Online Catalog View this record in: MARCXML | MODS | Dublin Core

2411:

description of the writing of men like Irving its use can also be found by doing the correct Google search

1174: 1166: 1144: 673: 485:

which would solve a lot of problems (but create some new ones with those editors who believe otherwise). --

482: 300: 2652: 2548: 2094: 2086: 1974: 1944: 1814: 1772: 1707: 1562: 1502: 1463: 1300: 1267: 1247:

economic and women's history was actually an aversion to the messy politicised debate around revisionism.

677: 245: 2834: 2811: 2162: 1227:

I believe details of this current debate should be included within the Examples section, lengthy or not.

1138: 681: 1984: 1433:

To be more precise! I'm saying that's what we really have here (right now) by these two (2) articles! --

867: 606:

I guess I disagree, I feel its terrible. But, can we compromise and go with my "minor cleanup" version?

285: 199: 839: 264:

and many others). That history (as a discourse or a social science) change with time is the subject of

2937:"The two leading critical exposés of Holocaust denial in the United States were written by historians 2841:. I challenge him to give us just One citation of an authority that establishes the matter otherwise. 1970: 1590:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

1252: 1380: 744: 2894:

and also gives a possible explanation for the use of the term in Irish history on the next page. --

1996: 1430: 1345: 2374: 2326: 2256: 2201: 1951:" as this is I suspect a difference in National English, as this quotation from the OED indicates: 1845: 1787: 1660: 1643: 1327: 810: 982: 950: 581:

I'm trying to cleanup the page a little bit, I hope I'm maintaining NPOV while doing so. Changes:

195:

Those kind of things tend to pop up during 'black history month' on college campusses (spelling?)

2859:

Critical Essays on Israeli Social Issues and Scholarship by Russell A. Stone, Walter P. Zenner -

2846: 2796: 2746: 2667: 2639: 2610: 2583: 2560: 2481: 2387: 2354: 2340: 2304: 2235: 1795: 1756: 1744: 1722: 1438: 1358: 1283: 1248: 565: 531: 117: 550: 440: 407: 338: 289: 2971: 2927: 2903: 2879: 2850: 2800: 2750: 2671: 2643: 2614: 2587: 2564: 2515: 2485: 2451: 2427: 2391: 2344: 2308: 2239: 2114: 1969:. I would also object to that title for two reasons first the term is used in the UK as see in 1924: 1886: 1853: 1826: 1799: 1760: 1726: 1672: 1651: 1634: 1578: 1557: 1515: 1480: 1442: 1419: 1384: 1362: 1335: 1317: 1287: 1256: 1178: 1156: 1125:. But I believe current events and people have been accused of rewriting history, notably both 1102: 1084: 1066: 1055: 1036: 1015: 1003: 985: 971: 953: 927: 853: 842: 796: 777: 760: 721: 702: 688: 648: 638: 620: 610: 601: 590: 553: 538: 489: 467: 454: 443: 421: 410: 351: 341: 307: 292: 234: 219: 202: 2951: 2686:

Search the LC Online Catalog Library of Congress Catalog Record Search the LC Online Catalog

2402:

This debate is about moving a page and not whether the terms exist. BTW the OED is not just a

2349:

I'm back with some Wonderful results for us Wikipedians - but I hope this will not offend you

2102: 1992: 1988: 1882: 1822: 1630: 1574: 1511: 166: 1714: 2938: 2915: 2407: 2062: 1553: 1217: 1200:, but has added new dimensions to all other legitimate revisionism influences, particularly 545: 451: 403: 395: 115: 113: 84: 2865:

Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism, 1938-1994 by Ciaran Brady

374:"legitimate" historical revisionism. As i allowed myself to write in the other page, some ( 2942: 2822: 2403: 2364: 2194: 1468:

Historical revisionism (negationism)#Techniques used by politically motivated revisionists

1390: 1376: 1213: 1099: 1063: 383: 379: 261: 216: 1326:

I would also oppose the merger of the articles for the reasons expressed by Mr. Shearer.

1995:'s decision to bomb Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime."(Luke Harding 1032:

Even if it does, is it worth the bother, or will it become one for endless POV wars? --

230:

The edit as of 15:13 Nov 19 does not seem to add to the page at all. I will revert it.--

2624: 2473: 1193: 1185: 1132: 1129: 1126: 1081: 1052: 1000: 924: 850: 793: 757: 699: 617: 598: 535: 486: 464: 418: 370: 348: 304: 272: 265: 177: 152: 2842: 2792: 2742: 2663: 2635: 2606: 2579: 2556: 2477: 2438: 2383: 2336: 2300: 2231: 2154: 1904: 1791: 1752: 1718: 1434: 1354: 1279: 504: 231: 209: 1873:

and I didn't look closely at the merge template on this page when I reformatted the

2285: 2040: 2000: 1878: 1818: 1626: 1570: 1507: 1221: 946: 889: 645: 635: 607: 587: 391: 288:?" This is the only NPOV way to defend those extremist POV that i can think off... 276: 2890:

and also "not the negation of history": Québec: State and Society By Alain Gagnon

2997:

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

2180: 1908: 1874: 1867: 1768: 1732: 1703: 1566: 1549: 718: 685: 399: 387: 46:

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

1835:

How did we, in less than 24 hours, get from a proposed merger with the article

2826: 2679:

There's the following scholarly journal (whose notability may be in dispute):

2158: 2146: 2004: 772: 271:

Now, that historians constantly rewrite history (some historians study this:

240:

Two pages? historical revisionism (political) is plain historical revisionism

2552: 2472:

when I bring up one of the world's greatest scholarly libraries, the former

2209: 2150: 2127:

I appreciate very much your substantial contribution, work, and dedication,

1372: 1209: 739:

the use of the term by holocaust deniers indicated its use by the so-called

520: 512: 303:, because thats what it is, it has nothing to do with legetimate history. -- 2274:

Using that resource (I'll go to the BL later) we can derive the following

2887: 1748: 1736: 1464:

Historical revisionism#French attacking formations in the Napoleonic wars

996: 992: 253: 2601: 2369: 2266: 2142: 144: 2161:

writers either. And, (2) we must be careful in not reclessly creating

1299:

It was also decided to keep them as two distinct articles (originally

463:

Thanks. I thought that was the case but was not sure. Will clarify. --

2206: 2962:"'Till at last the maiden cried 'Enough, enough, I'm satisfied.'" -- 1877:

merge into a proposed move. I have put the template back up. Sorry!

1533:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

963: 940: 406:

and other genocides-denial : all of those uses are political uses.

180:, see the section of his article titled Fabrication and plagiarism. 2715:

Related Names: New Brunswick Historical Society. » More like this

2281: 1680:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

788:

There will always be new perspectives and theories, just like in

192:

but it would be an interesting subject of this article as well.

131:

See the Archive for talk on this article before this time stamp.

2727:

Subjects: New Brunswick--History--Periodicals. » More like this

2350: 2068:? Both of the last two articles are from British Academic sites. 1790:

appears to be WP's term for the MW usage I have given herein. --

1740: 375: 257: 2976: 2656: 2169: 1642:. I support the alternative proposed (see discussion below). 696:

Talk:Historical revisionism (political)#Historical semanticism

439:

historians refering to this "legitimate" sense. Is that fine?

118: 78: 25: 2595:: "They" publish the highly prestigiously named jounal - the 244:

I agree there is no reason justifying two different entries,

1973:

but also because in practice it is convenient to keep it at

1625:, I have an alternative proposal as I have explained below. 1117:

I don't know if this should go here, on this article, or on

2173: 1375:, are they the same thing, or is it one form of denialism? 2022:

and they may well get it wrong if the source is not clear.

317:

Huh? I am reverting your merge for the following reasons:

1051:), than a legitimate academic discovery of new facts. -- 2013:

would force the editor of the article to choose between

1466:

and compare that to the Evans quote that I added to the

429:"by some historians and others, particularly in the USA" 2503: 1871: 1497:

should remain as named. This page should be renamed to

909: 2821:

From what I see now, despite the noble efforts of our

2698:

Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.)

2576: 1870:

page (incorrectly) had a merge template pointing here

2825:

UK editor (I love that title for the members of your

2736:

LCCN Permalink: A Service of the Library of Congress

2555:

studies - of the much discredited sort, I might add.

2506:(and the previous one included in the same diff). -- 327:

The discussion of the merge is in the other article.

2948:

Fathoming the Holocaust: A Social Problems Approach

2551:. It would appear that it's reduced effectively to 1612:, please explain your reasons, taking into account 2918:. So "you pays you money and takes you choice". -- 1977:when linking from statements like this taken from 1717:the Latter page (this Article) into the Former. -- 1399:about 72,200 English pages for revisionist site:uk 1353:? Come on people, someone help me out on this! -- 507:from The Holocaust History Project, by Gord McFee 402:and refusal of actual state-borders, then to the 947:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/korea/FI11Dg03.html 2378:!!! That makes our work so much easier I think. 1371:How should the "Negationism" article relate to 1262:Merge Historical revisionism (negationism) here 1113:Request "Accusations of Historical revisionism" 1029:Does this example help to illuminate the issue? 1024:Irish history concerning relations with Britain 347:You have not given a reason for the POV tag. -- 1501:, as I have proposed in the discussion below. 1131:(On the Iraq war and his terms in office) and 398:in marxist controversy, then used to refer to 1997:German historian provokes row over war photos 1405:about 4,440,000 English pages for revisionism 1402:about 912 English pages for denialism site:uk 1396:about 777 English pages for denialist site:uk 904:Reverted Chinese attempts to re-write history 8: 2782:, ... etc., but only "they" call themselves 2335:I'll come back with the BL results later. -- 505:"What is Legitimate Historical Revisionism?" 2219:(4) Here's my finding for the LOC is this: 2176:. In that regard we can use the WP device: 1782:is the so-called non-pejoritive usage. And 1778:To the best of my historica recollection, 1610:polling is not a substitute for discussion 331:--Stbalbach 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 616:had wanted deleted in your major edit. -- 1866:That would be my own error, Sorry! The 515:by Ben S. Austin, on holocaust deniers. 2995:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2085:So in conclusion. I am against moving 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2265:Here, just a click away, are these 4 1979:Allied war crimes during World War II 1266:It looks to me like the two articles 7: 2934:And from the Holocaust denial page: 2099:biographic details of living persons 2019:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1837:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1614:Knowledge (XXG)'s naming conventions 1569:— Move to the non-pejorative usage — 1495:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1272:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1123:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1119:Historical revisionism (negationism) 1049:Historical revisionism (negationism) 913:Historical revisionism (negationism) 908:For the same reasons it was reverted 337:Just cut-paste from the other page. 321:The merge tag was just put up today. 2724:Notes: PREMARC/SERLOC merged record 2504:Revision as of 20:21, 27 April 2008 1202:Causation, Nationalism and Ideology 2659:, has to say about the whole lot: 1949:historical revisionism (accademic) 1462:in this article that I introduced 1305:historical revisionism (political) 767:Yes, all of them, what about them? 754:historical revisionism (political) 670:historical revisionism (political) 562:historical revisionism (political) 528:historical revisionism (political) 479:historical revisionism (political) 433:historical revisionism (political) 367:historical revisionism (political) 250:historical revisionism (political) 214:Historical revisionism (political) 143:This article contradicts itself.-- 24: 2168:(2) That being said, I (from the 2101:, as with the example above with 2091:Historical revisionism (academic) 2066:Historical revisionism (academic) 2015:Historical revisionism (academic) 2011:Historical revisionism (academic) 1841:Historical revisionism (academic) 1811:Historical revisionism (academic) 1499:Historical revisionism (academic) 838:definitely a "revisionist" view. 496:Legitimate historical revisionism 324:There is opposition to the merge. 2980: 2710:New Brunswick Historical Society 2294:Revisionism (Christian theology) 2224:Revisionism (Christian theology) 964:http://hnn.us/articles/7077.html 941:http://hnn.us/articles/7077.html 83: 29: 2829:), the non-pejorative usage of 2623:: There is also the product of 2574:Institute for Historical Review 2141:. That means that we must find 1544:The result of the proposal was 878:) 17:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 821:) 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) 2779:The American Historical Review 2009:" Making the proposed move to 1157:21:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 220:01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC) 203:09:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 2733:Geographic Area Code: n-cn-nk 2730:LC Classification: F1041 .H56 2502:I was referring to this edit 2406:language dictionary it is an 2372:classification system of the 2064:if the article is renamed to 1713:I strongly recommend that we 1602:, then sign your comment with 1257:23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 1237:15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 797:14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) 761:21:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 748:19:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 729: 649:02:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 639:02:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 621:05:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 611:01:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 602:22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 591:20:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 554:15:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 539:15:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 490:15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 468:14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 455:08:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 444:15:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 422:14:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 411:14:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 352:14:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 342:14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 308:21:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 293:20:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 235:04:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 160:Need for more/better examples 2950:, Aldine Transaction, 2002, 2787:Journal of Historical Review 2767:"John Doe" Historical Review 2682:The Library of Congress: --> 2631:Journal of Historical Review 2598:Journal of Historical Review 1967:Historical revisionism (USA) 1913:Revisionism (disambiguation) 1786:is the pejorative one. Also 1493:I don't support this merge. 1278:which violates WP policy. -- 1179:17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 892:11:47, 18 February 2007 PST 854:15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 843:20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 826:Stbalbach, the text I added 778:13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) 722:18:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 703:01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 689:01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2039:And it seems to me that in 933:Please check these sources: 790:Decline of the Roman Empire 256:may have said that; so did 18:Talk:Historical revisionism 3041: 2972:17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2928:17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2910:And here is one that uses 2904:17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2880:17:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2851:15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2801:14:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2751:14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2721:Current Frequency: Monthly 2672:14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2644:14:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2615:14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2588:14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2565:13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2516:17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2486:13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2452:13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2428:13:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2392:13:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2345:13:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2309:13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2240:13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 2188:(3) One way of I avoiding 2178: 2115:09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 1925:09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 1887:22:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1854:22:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1827:21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1800:19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1761:19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1727:19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1673:13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 1652:22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1635:21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1579:20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1516:22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1481:15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1443:14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1431:"point of view (POV) fork" 1420:15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1389:There is also the article 1385:14:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1363:14:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1336:13:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1318:12:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1288:21:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1103:07:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC) 1085:15:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 1067:13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 1016:15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 1004:02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC) 986:23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 972:14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 954:03:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 928:02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 730:Hey! Where's the Cold War? 176:This view was promoted by 2773:English Historical Review 2470:Oxford English Dictionary 2129:User:Philip Baird Shearer 1739:(in the USA) was born in 1075:Ok what got me was this: 1056:22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 1037:11:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 526:Perhaps we should rename 169:16:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC) 135:13:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2695:LC Control No.: 72620026 1699:Any additional comments: 1683:Please do not modify it. 1536:Please do not modify it. 147:22:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2321:Revisionism (Holocaust) 2315:Revisionism (Communist) 2137:(1) There should be no 1558:16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 1346:Knowledge (XXG):Forking 783:Atomic Attacks on Japan 694:See talk page comments 155:00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) 2831:Historical Revisionism 2718:Description: v. 23 cm. 2653:Anti-Defamation League 2549:historical Revisionism 2251:Revisionism, Holocaust 2245:Revisionism, Communist 2095:Historical revisionism 2087:historical revisionism 1975:historical revisionism 1945:Historical revisionism 1815:Historical revisionism 1807:Historical revisionism 1784:Historical revisionism 1773:Historical revisionism 1708:Historical revisionism 1563:Historical revisionism 1503:Historical revisionism 1301:Historical revisionism 1268:Historical revisionism 678:Historical Revisionism 481:to somthing else like 246:historical revisionism 151:Feel free to explain. 2993:of past discussions. 1985:revisionist historian 1198:Accession of New Data 866:comment was added by 809:comment was added by 674:Historical Propaganda 483:historical propaganda 361:Merge & POV check 301:historical propaganda 286:politically incorrect 42:of past discussions. 2964:Philip Baird Shearer 2920:Philip Baird Shearer 2896:Philip Baird Shearer 2872:Philip Baird Shearer 2839:WP:Original research 2816:WP:Original research 2791:- that misleads us. 2708:Published/Created: 2508:Philip Baird Shearer 2466:Philip Baird Shearer 2444:Philip Baird Shearer 2420:Philip Baird Shearer 2269:created by the LOC: 2190:WP:Original research 2139:WP:Original research 2107:Philip Baird Shearer 1943:I am against moving 1917:Philip Baird Shearer 1846:Tom (North Shoreman) 1715:Knowledge (XXG):Move 1665:Philip Baird Shearer 1644:Tom (North Shoreman) 1473:Philip Baird Shearer 1412:Philip Baird Shearer 1328:Tom (North Shoreman) 1310:Philip Baird Shearer 1034:Philip Baird Shearer 1013:Philip Baird Shearer 969:Philip Baird Shearer 962:I found the article 133:Philip Baird Shearer 2375:Library of Congress 2327:Revisionist Zionism 2257:Revisionist Zionism 2253:LC subject headings 2247:LC subject headings 2226:LC subject headings 2202:Library of Congress 1788:Marxist revisionism 1661:Marxist revisionism 1274:are an instance of 682:Historical Accuracy 680:should be moved to 672:should be moved to 2912:the term the other 2651:: Here's what the 2355:Yankee imperialism 1767:Confusion between 566:historical deniers 532:historical deniers 3028: 3027: 3005: 3004: 2999:current talk page 2833:is either such a 2703:Historical review 2692:Historical review 1993:Winston Churchill 1971:this word article 1745:Merriam-Webster's 1344:If you can avoid 1242:Irish Revisionism 1229:CasualObserver'48 1192:I have added the 1181: 1169:comment added by 1159: 1147:comment added by 1043:Irish revisionism 879: 822: 776: 390:: it was used by 124: 123: 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3032: 3019: 3007: 3006: 2984: 2983: 2977: 2939:Deborah Lipstadt 2916:Holocaust denial 2408:English language 2192:is to go to the 1903:I have reverted 1685: 1606: 1600: 1594: 1538: 1218:new antisemitism 1188:- A New Paradigm 1164: 1142: 861: 804: 775: 546:Holocaust denial 404:Holocaust denial 396:Eduard Bernstein 119: 87: 79: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3015: 2981: 2943:Michael Shermer 2823:Right Honorable 2819: 2404:British English 2365:British Library 2195:British Library 2183: 1991:, claims that " 1743:, according to 1695: 1690: 1681: 1604: 1598: 1592: 1586: 1534: 1528: 1391:genocide denial 1264: 1244: 1214:self-hating Jew 1190: 1115: 1045: 1026: 906: 885: 862:—The preceding 805:—The preceding 785: 769: 732: 661: 579: 498: 384:Michel Foucault 380:Walter Benjamin 363: 262:Walter Benjamin 242: 228: 217:Septentrionalis 189: 162: 141: 129: 120: 114: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3038: 3036: 3026: 3025: 3020: 3013: 3003: 3002: 2985: 2975: 2974: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2931: 2930: 2907: 2906: 2883: 2882: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2818: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2734: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2713: 2706: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2683:LCCN Permalink 2674: 2646: 2625:Noontide Press 2618: 2590: 2567: 2535:: Neither the 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2474:British Museum 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2379: 2359: 2358: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2323: 2317: 2311: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2254: 2248: 2242: 2217: 2186: 2179:Main article: 2166: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2103:Jörg Friedrich 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1989:Jörg Friedrich 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1830: 1829: 1776: 1775: 1764: 1763: 1711: 1710: 1701: 1694: 1691: 1689: 1688: 1676: 1675: 1654: 1637: 1619: 1618: 1593:*'''Support''' 1585: 1582: 1542: 1541: 1529: 1527: 1526:Requested move 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1446: 1445: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1397: 1366: 1365: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1321: 1320: 1296: 1295: 1263: 1260: 1243: 1240: 1194:New Historians 1189: 1186:New Historians 1183: 1149:209.249.65.142 1139:209.249.65.142 1133:Vladimir Putin 1127:George W. Bush 1114: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1070: 1069: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1030: 1025: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 989: 988: 977: 976: 975: 974: 957: 956: 944: 938: 934: 905: 902: 898: 897: 884: 881: 859: 857: 856: 836: 834: 832: 825: 811:159.105.80.219 801: 784: 781: 768: 765: 764: 763: 731: 728: 715: 714: 713: 712: 706: 705: 660: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 641: 626: 625: 624: 623: 604: 594: 593: 578: 575: 570: 569: 524: 523: 517: 516: 509: 508: 497: 494: 493: 492: 473: 472: 471: 470: 458: 457: 425: 424: 371:historiography 362: 359: 357: 355: 354: 329: 328: 325: 322: 311: 310: 273:historiography 266:historiography 241: 238: 227: 224: 223: 222: 188: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 178:Ward Churchill 161: 158: 157: 156: 140: 137: 128: 125: 122: 121: 116: 112: 110: 107: 106: 98: 97: 94: 93: 88: 82: 75: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3037: 3024: 3021: 3018: 3014: 3012: 3009: 3008: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2986: 2979: 2978: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2956: 2953: 2949: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2935: 2933: 2932: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2817: 2813: 2810: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2781: 2780: 2775: 2774: 2769: 2768: 2763: 2760: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2735: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2697: 2694: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2678: 2675: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2626: 2622: 2619: 2617: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2605:the expound. 2602: 2600: 2599: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2575: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2414: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2328: 2324: 2322: 2318: 2316: 2312: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2299: 2298:only one book 2296: 2295: 2290: 2289: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2264: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2230: 2229:only one book 2227: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2218: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2203: 2198: 2196: 2191: 2187: 2185: 2182: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2163:WP:Neologisms 2160: 2156: 2155:lexicographer 2152: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2130: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2042: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1963: 1956: 1955: 1953: 1952: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1869: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1684: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1655: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1617: 1615: 1611: 1603: 1599:*'''Oppose''' 1597: 1591: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1581: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1540: 1537: 1531: 1530: 1525: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1404: 1401: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1241: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1205: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1187: 1184: 1182: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1160: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1140: 1136: 1134: 1130: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1112: 1104: 1101: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1083: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1042: 1038: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 987: 984: 979: 978: 973: 970: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 955: 952: 948: 945: 942: 939: 937: 935: 932: 931: 930: 929: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 903: 901: 895: 894: 893: 891: 882: 880: 877: 873: 869: 868:159.105.80.63 865: 855: 852: 847: 846: 845: 844: 841: 829: 823: 820: 816: 812: 808: 799: 798: 795: 791: 782: 780: 779: 774: 766: 762: 759: 755: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 742: 738: 727: 724: 723: 720: 710: 709: 708: 707: 704: 701: 697: 693: 692: 691: 690: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 666: 658: 650: 647: 642: 640: 637: 634:revising it. 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 622: 619: 614: 613: 612: 609: 605: 603: 600: 596: 595: 592: 589: 584: 583: 582: 576: 574: 567: 563: 558: 557: 556: 555: 552: 547: 541: 540: 537: 533: 529: 522: 519: 518: 514: 511: 510: 506: 503: 502: 501: 495: 491: 488: 484: 480: 475: 474: 469: 466: 462: 461: 460: 459: 456: 453: 448: 447: 446: 445: 442: 438: 434: 430: 423: 420: 415: 414: 413: 412: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 372: 368: 360: 358: 353: 350: 346: 345: 344: 343: 340: 335: 332: 326: 323: 320: 319: 318: 315: 309: 306: 302: 297: 296: 295: 294: 291: 287: 281: 278: 274: 269: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 239: 237: 236: 233: 225: 221: 218: 215: 211: 210:Martin Bernal 207: 206: 205: 204: 201: 200:80.228.154.61 196: 193: 187:Black History 186: 179: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 168: 159: 154: 150: 149: 148: 146: 138: 136: 134: 126: 109: 108: 105: 104: 100: 99: 96: 95: 91: 86: 81: 80: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3016: 2994: 2988: 2947: 2835:WP:Neologism 2830: 2820: 2812:WP:Neologism 2784: 2783: 2777: 2771: 2765: 2761: 2702: 2701:Main Title: 2676: 2648: 2628: 2620: 2604: 2596: 2592: 2569: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2373: 2363: 2297: 2291: 2286:Encyclopedic 2278: 2275: 2228: 2222: 2216:Search Tool. 2213: 2212:under their 2200: 2193: 2177: 2126: 2041:this article 2001:The Guardian 1982: 1806: 1783: 1779: 1777: 1712: 1698: 1682: 1679: 1656: 1639: 1622: 1607: 1601: 1595: 1589: 1561: 1545: 1543: 1535: 1532: 1350: 1275: 1265: 1245: 1226: 1222:post-Zionism 1206: 1201: 1197: 1191: 1161: 1116: 1076: 1046: 990: 920: 907: 899: 886: 858: 840:JulietCastro 827: 824: 800: 786: 770: 740: 736: 733: 725: 716: 664: 662: 580: 571: 542: 525: 499: 436: 428: 426: 392:Karl Kautsky 364: 356: 336: 333: 330: 316: 312: 282: 277:David Irving 270: 243: 229: 208:I would put 197: 194: 190: 167:Ithacagorges 163: 142: 130: 101: 89: 65: 43: 37: 2987:This is an 2941:(1993) and 2284:for our WP 2181:Revisionism 1983:The German 1909:Revisionism 1875:Revisionism 1868:Revisionism 1780:Revisionism 1769:Revisionism 1733:Revisionism 1704:Revisionism 1567:Revisionism 1171:77.241.36.5 1165:—Preceding 1143:—Preceding 665:Revisionism 577:Cleaning Up 564:article to 400:irredentism 388:revisionism 36:This is an 2955:0202306704 2827:Parliament 2762:Addendum 7 2677:Addendum 6 2649:Addendum 5 2621:Addendum 4 2593:Andendum 3 2570:Addendum 2 2533:Addendum 1 2353:regarding 2210:catalogues 2159:dictionary 2147:references 2005:October 21 1987:historian 1905:Ludvikus's 1693:Discussion 1377:Paul foord 1276:WP Forking 1210:neologisms 1100:Red Hurley 1064:Red Hurley 915:discussed 745:Sobolewski 437:mainstream 139:Contradict 3023:Archive 3 3017:Archive 2 3011:Archive 1 2957:, p. 154. 2655:, a.k.a. 2553:Holocaust 2543:have the 2368:uses the 2279:three (3) 2151:citations 1749:citations 1546:withdrawn 1373:Denialism 1082:Stbalbach 1053:Stbalbach 1001:Stbalbach 925:Stbalbach 923:only. -- 883:Red Scare 851:Stbalbach 831:accounts: 794:Stbalbach 758:Stbalbach 700:Stbalbach 663:The term 618:Stbalbach 599:Stbalbach 536:Stbalbach 487:Stbalbach 465:Stbalbach 419:Stbalbach 349:Stbalbach 305:Stbalbach 153:Stbalbach 103:Archive 1 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2888:paradigm 2861:Page 179 2843:Ludvikus 2793:Ludvikus 2743:Ludvikus 2664:Ludvikus 2636:Ludvikus 2607:Ludvikus 2580:Ludvikus 2557:Ludvikus 2547:heading 2539:nor the 2478:Ludvikus 2439:Ludvikus 2384:Ludvikus 2337:Ludvikus 2301:Ludvikus 2276:four (4) 2267:headings 2232:Ludvikus 2199:and the 2061:Famine." 1907:move of 1813:and for 1792:Ludvikus 1753:Ludvikus 1737:movement 1719:Ludvikus 1608:. Since 1435:Ludvikus 1355:Ludvikus 1280:Ludvikus 1212:such as 1167:unsigned 1145:unsigned 997:Goguryeo 993:Goguryeo 991:See the 921:examples 876:contribs 864:unsigned 819:contribs 807:unsigned 544:the way 254:Napoleon 232:droptone 90:Archives 2990:archive 2892:Page 56 2814:and/or 2770:: i.e. 2545:subject 2416:or here 2370:subject 2214:Subject 2165:either. 2143:sources 2007:, 2003) 1879:Ashanda 1819:Ashanda 1735:, as a 1627:Ashanda 1571:Ashanda 1508:Ashanda 1351:Forking 983:Cydevil 951:Cydevil 890:3Tigers 646:Lampros 636:Lampros 608:Lampros 588:Lampros 39:archive 2207:online 1844:name. 1771:& 1706:& 1657:Oppose 1640:Oppose 1623:Oppose 1584:Survey 1550:JPG-GR 1249:Cliste 719:shtove 686:shtove 676:, and 452:Paul B 226:revert 212:under 127:Page 2 2837:, or 2464:Dear 2351:Brits 2282:Title 2204:(USA) 2197:(UK) 773:Gutza 756:. -- 741:right 737:left, 551:Kaliz 441:Kaliz 408:Kaliz 339:Kaliz 290:Kaliz 16:< 2968:talk 2952:ISBN 2924:talk 2900:talk 2876:talk 2847:talk 2797:talk 2785:The 2764:The 2747:talk 2668:talk 2640:talk 2629:The 2611:talk 2584:talk 2561:talk 2512:talk 2482:talk 2476:? -- 2448:talk 2424:talk 2388:talk 2362:The 2341:talk 2305:talk 2236:talk 2111:talk 2105:. -- 2017:and 1947:to " 1921:talk 1883:talk 1850:talk 1823:talk 1796:talk 1757:talk 1751:. -- 1741:1903 1723:talk 1669:talk 1648:talk 1631:talk 1605:~~~~ 1575:talk 1554:talk 1512:talk 1477:talk 1439:talk 1416:talk 1381:talk 1359:talk 1332:talk 1314:talk 1303:and 1284:talk 1270:and 1253:talk 1233:talk 1224:. 1220:and 1175:talk 1153:talk 1141:~ 917:here 872:talk 815:talk 698:. -- 659:Why? 394:and 376:Marx 258:Marx 248:and 2657:ADL 2537:LOC 2325:4. 2319:3. 2313:2. 2292:1. 2170:USA 2157:or 2089:to 1999:in 1911:to 1121:or 911:at 900:-G 828:was 530:to 165:-- 2970:) 2926:) 2902:) 2878:) 2870:-- 2849:) 2799:) 2776:, 2749:) 2741:-- 2712:. 2670:) 2662:. 2642:) 2634:. 2627:: 2613:) 2586:) 2572:: 2563:) 2541:BL 2514:) 2484:) 2450:) 2442:-- 2426:) 2413:eg 2390:) 2382:-- 2343:) 2307:) 2288:: 2238:) 2174:UK 2149:, 2145:, 2113:) 2003:, 1923:) 1885:) 1852:) 1825:) 1798:) 1759:) 1725:) 1671:) 1650:) 1633:) 1596:or 1577:) 1565:→ 1556:) 1514:) 1479:) 1471:-- 1441:) 1418:) 1410:-- 1383:) 1361:) 1334:) 1316:) 1286:) 1255:) 1235:) 1216:, 1177:) 1155:) 949:] 874:• 817:• 382:, 378:, 260:, 198:-- 145:AI 3001:. 2966:( 2922:( 2898:( 2874:( 2845:( 2795:( 2745:( 2705:. 2666:( 2638:( 2609:( 2582:( 2559:( 2510:( 2480:( 2446:( 2422:( 2386:( 2357:: 2339:( 2303:( 2234:( 2184:. 2109:( 1981:" 1919:( 1881:( 1848:( 1821:( 1794:( 1755:( 1721:( 1667:( 1646:( 1629:( 1616:. 1573:( 1552:( 1510:( 1475:( 1437:( 1414:( 1379:( 1357:( 1330:( 1312:( 1282:( 1251:( 1231:( 1173:( 1151:( 943:] 870:( 813:( 50:.

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

Index