Changes

==Revisionism==

==Revisionism==

Revisionism is a reversal of opinion, and generally is used for historians who reverse the old "orthodox" or standard interpretation. The first "revisionist" debate came in the 1920s when a new group of historians rejected the thesis that Germany was "guilty" (primarily responsible) for causing the Great War, a proposition that was included in the [[Treaty of Versailles]].<ref> See Samuel R. Williamson Jr. and Ernest R. May, "An Identity of Opinion: Historians and July 1914," ''Journal of Modern History'' (2007) Volume 79, Number 2, 335-87 </ref>

Revisionism is a reversal of opinion, and generally is used for historians who reverse the old "orthodox" or standard interpretation. The first "revisionist" debate came in the 1920s when a new group of historians rejected the thesis that Germany was "guilty" (primarily responsible) for causing the Great War, a proposition that was included in the [[Treaty of Versailles]].<ref> See Samuel R. Williamson Jr. and Ernest R. May, "An Identity of Opinion: Historians and July 1914," ''Journal of Modern History'' (2007) Volume 79, Number 2, 335-87 </ref>

===Whig Intrerpretation===

===Whig Interpretation===

The [[Whig Interpretation of History]] refers to histories that are too present-oriented when dealing with the past. Whif historians saw British history as the inevitable unfolding of progress, especially liberty and parliamentary rule, with the inexorable defeat of Toryism and absolute monarchy. 20th century downplay the Whig approach and drop the notion of inevitable progress. They now warn against looking at the past as a simple pathway to the present, insisting there were always multiple contingencies along the way.<ref>Herbert Butterfield, ''The Whig interpretation of history'' (1931)[http://books.google.com/books?id=Ia6IpQKrx58C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpts]</ref>

The [[Whig Interpretation of History]] refers to histories that are too present-oriented when dealing with the past. Whig historians saw British history as the inevitable unfolding of progress, especially liberty and parliamentary rule, with the inexorable defeat of Toryism and absolute monarchy. 20th century downplay the Whig approach and drop the notion of inevitable progress. They now warn against looking at the past as a simple pathway to the present, insisting there were always multiple contingencies along the way.<ref>Herbert Butterfield, ''The Whig interpretation of history'' (1931)[http://books.google.com/books?id=Ia6IpQKrx58C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false excerpts]</ref>