Talk:Revision

Root of the Word

I just put the above in. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My english teacher said the Root Word of "Rivision" is "Vision" but a colleague of mine says its "Revise". Who's correct ?

revise is right

Wikipedia

Shouldn't there be a headnote about the use on Wikipedia? TheBlazikenMaster 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge issue

Extended content

We have two distinct but obviously related DAB pages that should be merged. Please commence the discussion. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no they shouldn't. And no, no they're not related. This page deals, very clearly, with non-social and technical uses of the word revision. The specifically social and academic uses of the word "Revisionism" are known only as "Revisionism" and should remain there. You can go stick your should. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your last remark was, so I'll ignore that. This is a DAB page. And for that we only need to consider the following obvious and common sense analysis:

Revisition = the act of Revising.

Revising = the active form of Revise.

Revise = what leads to a Revision.

Revision the product of a Revisionist.

Revisionist = a subscriber to Revisionism

Revisionism - I leave that alone.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages purpose is to make navigation to the correct page easier. Glomming all these barely related usages together does not further that goal. I am against this merge. —Ashanda (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you're very confused about the purpose of a disambiguation page. I've recommended many times that you read WP:DAB and stop these disruptive merge suggestions. Please stop and read the guideline. I've removed the merger proposal. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Ashanda. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say, User:Malik Shabazz, that I'm disruptive, you disrupt, and I am unable to follow your train of thought and only focus on that disrupting word. If you want to be effective with me, be specific. I told you that many times. Say clearly, and impersonally, what you wish to say. I will then consider it and respond accordingly, and appropriately. Since you talk about generalities, however, let me respond in kind: why should Wikipedia not make clear that holocaust denial on Wikipedia is not the same as Revision, more spicifically of the historical variety, namely, Historical Revision, or Historical revisionism (negationism) ? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• More particularly - since no one seems my point - look at this quote from our un-DAB page - and follow the words I wish to Disambiguate since they are currently use synonymously (--Ludvikus (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)):

    Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson,
    writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:
    
    {{quote|The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision
    is the lifeblood of historical scholarship.
    History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past.
    Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence,
    new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time.
    There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning.
    The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"
    —is what makes history vital and meaningful.
    Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction
    after the American Civil War that were conveyed by
    D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era.
    Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"?
    Without revisionist historians
    who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions,
    we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes.
    Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history
    as well as of the Constitution. <ref>
   *Ref http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm

• PS: (I only added most of the links for emphassis. -Ludvikus (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC))
• How Wikipedia can read into this quote Historical revisionism is absolutely amazing! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• And since this citation/reference/authority is about Revisionist historians , the right thing is to WP:Move the article which may thereby make DAB less critical. I propose this: Historical revisionism → Revisionist historians. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision

The amendment of a text in order to correct, update, improve, or adapt it. A revised and republished version of a text. Study that involves looking over notes and course materials, in preparation for a test. It also means to check or correct something.