Revision as of 21:32, 22 September 2009 editLudvikus (talk | contribs)21,211 edits →"Revisionists, get out of Florida"← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:47, 22 September 2009 edit undoLudvikus (talk | contribs)21,211 edits →"Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ..."Next edit → | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
== "Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ..." == | == "Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ..." == | ||
We should probably also write about this, and not necessarily in this article. :]. --] (]) 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | We should probably also write about this, and not necessarily in this article. :]. --] (]) 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
: Incidentally, that's the work (in Florida) of ]. --] (]) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:47, 22 September 2009
History Redirect‑class | |||||||
|
Holocaust denial
See discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism
The two are not to be confused. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
List of notable revisionist historians
This include the following(--Ludvikus (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)):
- *
Harry Elmer Barnes
He probably should be discussed in this article because of his "revisionist" view as to Germany's alleged "war guilt" - for starting WWI. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Revision of DAB page
There is no distinctly American version of historical revisionism -- instead, as the article Historical revisionism makes clear, revisionism is a legitimate process that covers historians in all countries. Also the DAB page needs to cover the subject Historical revisionism (negationism) which includes, but is not limited, to Holocaust denial. There is a long history on the discussion pages of the revisionism articles that shows how this division developed. The new stubb article does a very poor job, at present, in summarizing American historians and revisionism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- What's present is merely a "stub" - it's not yet an article. I'm no youngster either, and I remember reading, often, the classification of American historians as revisionists. But I never recall reading any study of such classification. I always recall a qualification that such-and-such was a "revisionist." But no explanation was ever given, except that a list was sometimes given of others dubbed "revisionist."
- So if I'm going to develop this "stub," the best I can do is retrieve my sources for the listings.
- I've made some inquiries as to any collective study of "revisionists" - by identifying the Americans I know often classed together under this category.
- But I sincerely doubt that byou can produce one scholarly study which justifies your turning of the expression "historical revisionism" into a well-defined school, or historiographical distinction. Everything I remember in the articles about this classification smells like original research. It's true that McPherson wrote a piece discussing "revisionism." But that does not warrant any more merit than a view of McPherson that all history is revision, or something like that. I don't know of any encyclopedic source beside Misplaced Pages which justifies such a historiographical observation. But I'm not going to touch that article at this point. I'm only interested in writing about these American (not foreign, or international) historians who have been traditionally lumped together as "revisionist." And if there is no study of what they all have in common, so be it. But I certainly do not find that you've established that there's common methodology by which we are warranted to classify historians and thinkers throughout the world as belonging to this family of historians which I've named explicitly in the stub. So please help me develop the stub by making specific recommendations. Sweeping generalizations as to the inadequacy of the stub are nonconstructive and even useless. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Revisionists, get out of Florida"
It's not clear what (brother?) Bush meant in 2006. Apparently there was now a third category of revisionists:
- So we need to write about that in this article. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Florida Law Banning Revisionist History Ignores the Past ..."
We should probably also write about this, and not necessarily in this article. :]. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, that's the work (in Florida) of Jeb Bush. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)