Talk:Revisionism

2004

User:WHEELER's edits made a claim that I believe has been refuted elsewhere. Also, his link to the Wikipedia namespace was not appropriate. Isomorphic 23:18, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Popular discourse is a reasonably common term. Can't be bothered arguing about it. Will use a similar expression. Fifelfoo 05:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The point of the original para was that use of the word revisionism in its original technical sense among historians is declining because of the negative connotations it has acquired of holocaust-denial etc. This is a simple and clear point to make. You are cluttering the para up with vague and incorrect statements. Please leave it alone. Adam 05:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam, the version you prefer is rather imprecise about the /mechanism/ of why the word's use has decined outside of historigraphy and historiology. "Completely neutral" is also rather, um, dodgy. Historians go each others guts over 60 year periods about, crudely, if the Germans were right or wrong in the first world war. And they don't use "revisionist" in a neutral sense. Its got the halo of a saint or the taint of a heretic about it. Fifelfoo 06:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The use of the word has declined among historians for the reasons stated in the paragraph. Adam 06:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its current amongst WWI, Hitler/German studies in terms of the debate about volition and social structuration of the holocaust. Its current in Vietnam studies, and certainly in Eastern European studies. Additionally, there was no stain amongst the historians I've practiced with. What's your experience base? Fifelfoo 22:39, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sufficient to avoid debating with people who use words like "historiology" and "structuration." Adam 02:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sloppy

This article is sloppy. The stuff about Marxist governments should be condensed into a single paragraph. Shorne 01:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The stuff about Marxist governments is one of the best descriptions of the use of the term revisionism within socialism. Each instance of the use of the term is seperate and specific. Collapsing them would be terrible, as the significant differences would be obliterated.Fifelfoo 02:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggesting that these are distinct senses of the word, however, is misleading. How about a separate section: "Revisionism in Marxism"? Shorne 02:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have the same idea. (Great minds think alike, eh?) Thanks for the change. Shorne 02:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! An excellent solution all-round :) Fifelfoo 05:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is Irwin? He is nobody comparing to Copernicus, who dared to think independently from the only correct authorities. Copernicus was a revisionist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD5X6uk07yk) and he should be burnt on stake along with others who deserve it. Since the wikipedians do noting but publishing the facts, than I propose that the name and anything Copernicus did be banned from Wikipedia, along with some other heretics as obviously Irwin, Galileo, Da Vinci and other heretics. I even propose that the very word and anything to do with "Revisionism" be deleted and not permitted to be published for ever and ever. There are plenty of modern day heretics including "Flat Earth Society" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth) which also should be excommunicated from the Wikipedians and the material to be deleted and those people banned from taking part in any writing and editing Wikipedia, because this is a blasphemy. Because Wikipedia is not a denial of free speech but therefore, some people who think and believe differently than some revered Wikipedians, they should be condemned and their ideas not allowed to stir up the truth of Wikipedia. I also propose that anyone who makes mistake on Wikipedia, should be banned from editing it. It is a clear act of revisionisms. Further I propose that only a few chosen people have a license to discern the facts from false and only they can decide who and in what is right. Mmistrz (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

"This usage has declined amongst some historians because within the field of Holocaust studies revisionism has come to specifically designate historical or pseudo-historical work which aims to deny the extent of the Jewish Holocaust. More generally, revisionism is used by non-historians as a pejorative term for biased historical work which denies that some past events took place. See historical revisionism. "

I wonder who is really biased here. The author of the quote or the revisionists. By George...

Appeasement, Widerstand and Vatican Revisionism

I invite you and your fellow editors in the field of revisionism to take note of revisionism here on the WP . I would class this revisionism as being Widerstand revisionism because as with most such revisionism , a particular papal revisionism over-laps in purpose with volumes produced by widerstand historians . I am particularly unhappy at the Church affiliated revisionism cleansing the WP of reference to Papal involvement in German Weimar politics . I am not a historian , but if I were and I had cited myself, I would be erased . I cannot claim a reticence on my part to verbosity of challenge , but a more than cursory visit to the discussion page on Hitler's Pope would apprise you of the historical focus , and of the moral consequences . I assume your involvement upon the 'revisionism' pages means that you are interested in confronting it. My tuppence worth on the WP - I bet freely , and I take responsibility for pushing WP editing parameters towards the illegal :Copyright use . I have been forced as nearly as possible to paraphrase texts and then include clearly highlighted fair-use quotes . This is not holocaust denial , but is in parallel . Widerstand revisionism is the revisionism which suggests that the Allies in WWII, particularly Churchill, were responsible for prolonging the war and thus consciously implicated in the holocaust . It salves the German national conscious by suggesting allied deafness towards reasonable widerstand offers of 1938 to 1943 . None of these offers were reasonable and all expected a territorial aggrandisement into Austro-hungarian territories and Poland . The scandal on the Allied side is that appeasing forces entertained them sufficiently as to lead to the war , whilst international industrial forces actively promoted anti-democratic force. The vatican appeasement of 32-33 was followed by a crashing silence which subsists up to this day . I will if I am allowed post these important subjects under appropriate heading here .Fiamekeeper 07:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Historiography

Might it be an idea to link this article in some way to historiography or vice versa? It is after all a subject behind which lie important historiographical issues.

Historical Revisionism

You cite one specific, you must cite one for another. Citing complete censorship of an event in regard to revisonist history is not contentious.

Hd8888 21:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro and NPOV

I tried to improve the intro somewhat. The old intro seem to imply that holocause denial was a viewed my many as a legitimate form of historical revisisionism (as used by true historians). The intro needs to be improved further so as to be clearer on what term means when refering to the revisionism of Carl Marx's work.Just how was Marx's work revised? --Cab88 10:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism

I've taken the knife to this section, as it seems to be arguing from a particular point of view (specifically that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). --Apeloverage 06:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've merged it with the previous section on socialism, for obvious reasons. --Apeloverage 06:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! BobFromBrockley 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

Can we take the needs citation tag off now? Is it OK? BobFromBrockley 13:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Due to the variety of different uses of the word revisionism, I have moved the Marxism-related material to Marxist revisionism and made this a disambiguation page. -- Nikodemos 08:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Revisionism (disambiguation) to Revisionism as there is no current consensus to revert the Revisionism article from a disambiguation article back into an inclusive article. I think the the different meanings should remain different articles as they have little in common other than the word revisionism. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist Power

I was just writing about to write an essay on why Japan became a 'revisionist power' in the 30's but I didn't know what they meant by revisionist which brought me here. However from looking at other articles on the internet with that term they mean a country that seeks to revise the balance of power, i.e. one that has an aggressive foreign policy. This is a common use of the term so I think someone (not me) should put an article on it.--158.143.165.215 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Zionist-Revisionists & Likud

See also

Union of Zionist-Revisionists (UZR) - that was a former name/title associate with Zionist revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likud - the successor of the UZR ABOVE. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1

{{Wiktionary|revisionism}} Revisionism may refer to:

Revisionist, the ordinary dictionary meaning
Revisionism (fictional), the retelling of a story with substantial alterations in character or environment, to "revise" the view shown in the original work.
Revisionism (Marxist), a pejorative term used to describe ideas based on a revision of fundamental Marxist premises.
Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of historical facts.
Historical revisionism (negationism), a particular form of historical revisionism concerned with the denial of facts accepted by mainstream historians.
Revisionist Zionism, a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement.
Territorial revisionism, a euphemism for revanchism or irredentism, the desire to recover the territory of a nation lost in war

==See also==

Please archive the above for future reference.: The above has just been Reverted. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why does 'holocaust revisionism' link without redirect to 'holocaust denial'?! Moemin05 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]