from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Of or pertaining to revisionism
- n. A proponent of revisionism
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. One who favors or supports revision, as in the case of a creed or a statute.
- n. A reviser; specifically, one of the revisers of the English version of the Bible. See revised version of the Bible, under version.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. a Communist who tries to rewrite Marxism to justify a retreat from the revolutionary position
Since almost all social democratic parties have long since abandoned any claim to Marxist revolutionary orthodoxy, the label revisionist hardly applies to them any longer; the con - tinuity in regarding revisionism as a form of bourgeois ideology within the socialist camp has been maintained.
When we use the term revisionist, however, we generally mean something more fundamental: a writer who tries to change the reader's mind in a major way by providing a new general interpretation, one that sharply and thoroughly reexamines the established way of looking at a matter.
But over the years, I just want to be sure that we don't get engaged in what I call revisionist history.
Anybody who uses terms like “intelligence failure” is ignoring these facts and engaging in revisionist history.
You can call it revisionist history and no one can argue that it gives only one viewpoint.
They have to face it, and will eventually since their current stand is based in revisionist lies (and anyone, people or country, that bases his/her/its actions on lies is in for a though time when reality checks ...).
I like the logic of this bold experiment in revisionist history from HRC flack Howard Wolfson:
There were few facts to back up Brown's testimony, so consequently, he engaged in revisionist history.
Gephardt maintains that Democratic opponents of campaign-finance reform had engaged in revisionist, or at least selective, history.
Very nice, Ari, but I'm pretty sure that it is the Administration that is engaging in revisionist history here, by asserting that what it was after all along was merely a "weapons program" rather than the possession of weapons of mass destruction.